471.410
Providing liquor to person under 21 or to intoxicated person; allowing
consumption by minor on property; mandatory minimum penalties. (1) A person may not sell, give or
otherwise make available any alcoholic liquor to any person who is visibly
intoxicated.
(2) A person
other than the person’s parent or guardian may not sell, give or otherwise make
available any alcoholic liquor to a person under the age of 21 years. A parent
or guardian may give or otherwise make alcoholic liquor available to a person
under the age of 21 years only if the person is in a private residence and is
accompanied by the parent or guardian. A person violates this subsection if the
person sells, gives or otherwise makes available alcoholic liquor to a person
with the knowledge that the person to whom the liquor is made available will
violate this subsection.
(3)(a) A person
who exercises control over private real property may not knowingly allow any
other person under the age of 21 years who is not a child or minor ward of the
person to consume alcoholic liquor on the property, or allow any other person
under the age of 21 years who is not a child or minor ward of the person to
remain on the property if the person under the age of 21 years consumes
alcoholic liquor on the property.
(b) This
subsection:
(A) Applies only
to a person who is present and in control of the location at the time the
consumption occurs;
(B) Does not
apply to the owner of rental property, or the agent of an owner of rental
property, unless the consumption occurs in the individual unit in which the
owner or agent resides; and
(C) Does not
apply to a person who exercises control over a private residence if the liquor
consumed by the person under the age of 21 years is supplied only by an accompanying
parent or guardian.
(4) This section
does not apply to sacramental wine given or provided as part of a religious
rite or service.
(5) Except as
provided in subsection (6) of this section, a person who violates subsection
(1) or (2) of this section commits a Class A misdemeanor. Upon violation of
subsection (2) of this section, the court shall impose at least a mandatory
minimum sentence as follows:
(a) Upon a first
conviction, a fine of at least $500.
(b) Upon a second
conviction, a fine of at least $1,000.
(c) Upon a third
or subsequent conviction, a fine of at least $1,500 and not less than 30 days
of imprisonment.
(6)(a) A person
who violates subsection (2) of this section is subject to the provisions of
this subsection if the person does not act knowingly or intentionally and:
(A) Is licensed
or appointed under this chapter;
(B) Is an
employee or agent of a person licensed or appointed under this chapter and the
employee or agent violates subsection (2) of this section while acting on
behalf or at the direction of the licensee or person appointed under this
chapter; or
(C) Is a delivery
person as defined in ORS 471.521 and was delivering alcoholic beverages to a
final consumer.
(b) For a person
described in paragraph (a) of this subsection:
(A) A first
conviction is a Class A violation.
(B) A second
conviction is a specific fine violation, and the presumptive fine for the
violation is $860.
(C) A third
conviction is a Class A misdemeanor. The court shall impose a mandatory fine of
not less than $1,000.
(D) A fourth or
subsequent conviction is a Class A misdemeanor. The court shall impose a
mandatory fine of not less than $1,000 and a mandatory sentence of not less
than 30 days of imprisonment.
(7) The court may
waive an amount that is at least $200 but not more than one-third of the fine
imposed under subsection (5) of this section, if the violator performs at least
30 hours of community service.
(8) Except as
provided in subsection (7) of this section, the court may not waive or suspend
imposition or execution of the mandatory minimum sentence required by
subsection (5) or (6) of this section. In addition to the mandatory sentence,
the court may require the violator to make restitution for any damages to
property where the alcoholic liquor was illegally consumed or may require
participation in volunteer service to a community service agency.
(9)(a) Except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person who violates subsection
(3) of this section commits a Class A violation.
(b) A second or
subsequent violation of subsection (3) of this section is a specific fine
violation, and the presumptive fine for the violation is $1,000.
(10) Nothing in
this section prohibits any licensee under this chapter from allowing a person
who is visibly intoxicated to remain on the licensed premises so long as the
person is not sold or served any alcoholic liquor. [Amended by 1963 c.243 §1;
1971 c.159 §5; 1977 c.458 §1; 1977 c.814 §1; 1983 cor. c.736 §1; 1995 c.301 §40;
1995 c.599 §5; 1995 c.756 §1; 1999 c.351 §58; 2009 c.412 §1; 2009 c.587 §4;
2009 c.608 §3; 2011 c.597 §87; 2014 c.20 §3; 2021 c.97 §63; 2021 c.351 §100;
2023 c.539 §18]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
69
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case:
Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016).
Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 14× “With regard to the context of the statute, defendant observes that ORS 471.565 does not impose a duty on alcohol providers not to serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons and guests.”
State v. James, 338 P.3d 782 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 36× “However, notwithstanding those textual and contextual indications of the potential breadth of the prohibition contained in ORS 471.”
City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi, 428 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 26× “Defendant contends that the ordinance prohibits conduct that ORS 471.410 permits. To determine whether that is so, we examine both the ordinance and the statute with which it is claimed to conflict.”
Davis v. Billy's Con-Teena, Inc., 587 P.2d 75 (Or. 1978).
· cites it 14× “" In Wiener it was contended by the plaintiff that one of the defendants was negligent in violating ORS 471.410(2) which provides that "no person other than his parent or guardian shall sell, give or otherwise make available any alcoholic liquor to any person under the age of 21…”
Fulmer v. Timber Inn Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., 9 P.3d 710 (Or. 2000).
· cites it 12× “We reverse the Court of Appeals’ holding that the plaintiff stated a claim of negligence per se based on ORS 471.410.” Hawkins, 307 Or at 265 . At this point, plaintiffs’ argument would require the court not only to reverse the statutory construction adopted in Stachniewicz, but…”
Hawkins v. Conklin, 767 P.2d 66 (Or. 1988).
· cites it 8× “The plaintiff alleges a theory of negligence based on ORS 471.410. He also seeks to recover under a theory of statutory liability based on ORS 30.”
Gattman v. Favro, 757 P.2d 402 (Or. 1988).
· cites it 6× “In admitting defendant Favro to the premises or allowing him to remain upon the licensed premises when defendant Favro was visibly intoxicated in violation of ORS 471.410(1). “5. In failing to emphasize to its employees the rules and statutes of the State of Oregon which require…”
Doyle v. City of Medford, 337 P.3d 797 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 4× “, 298 Or 689, 695-96 , 696 P2d 513 (1985) (plain- tiff injured by customer served alcohol by tavern in violation of ORS 471.410(1) could proceed on theories of negligence, negligence “as a matter of law” for the tavern’s violation of ORS 471.”
Gattman v. Favro, 739 P.2d 572 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 8× “410(3) to ORS 471.410(1). It also alleged that Borrelli is strictly liable for the injuries which were "directly or proximately caused" by Borrelli, because it "served or provided defendant Favro alcoholic beverages while defendant Favro was visibly intoxicated," in violation of…”
State v. McCathern, 154 P.3d 130 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 18× “105 applies to ORS 471.410, which defines the offense of which defendant was convicted.”
Fulmer v. Timber Inn Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., 954 P.2d 201 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 12× “In the first three claims, they alleged that, by serving Gary while visibly intoxicated, defendant violated ORS 471.410(1), ORS 471.412(1), and ORS 472.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(1) — 24 cases
Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016).
“With regard to the context of the statute, defendant observes that ORS 471.565 does not impose a duty on alcohol providers not to serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons and guests.”
Fulmer v. Timber Inn Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., 9 P.3d 710 (Or. 2000).
“We reverse the Court of Appeals’ holding that the plaintiff stated a claim of negligence per se based on ORS 471.410.” Hawkins, 307 Or at 265 . At this point, plaintiffs’ argument would require the court not only to reverse the statutory construction adopted in Stachniewicz, but…”
Doyle v. City of Medford, 337 P.3d 797 (Or. 2014).
“, 298 Or 689, 695-96 , 696 P2d 513 (1985) (plain- tiff injured by customer served alcohol by tavern in violation of ORS 471.410(1) could proceed on theories of negligence, negligence “as a matter of law” for the tavern’s violation of ORS 471.”
Fulmer v. Timber Inn Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., 954 P.2d 201 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“In the first three claims, they alleged that, by serving Gary while visibly intoxicated, defendant violated ORS 471.410(1), ORS 471.412(1), and ORS 472.”
Hawkins v. Conklin, 767 P.2d 66 (Or. 1988).
“The plaintiff alleges a theory of negligence based on ORS 471.410. He also seeks to recover under a theory of statutory liability based on ORS 30.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(10) — 1 case
City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi, 428 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“Defendant contends that the ordinance prohibits conduct that ORS 471.410 permits. To determine whether that is so, we examine both the ordinance and the statute with which it is claimed to conflict.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(10)(a) — 1 case
State v. James, 338 P.3d 782 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“However, notwithstanding those textual and contextual indications of the potential breadth of the prohibition contained in ORS 471.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(2) — 23 cases
State v. James, 338 P.3d 782 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“However, notwithstanding those textual and contextual indications of the potential breadth of the prohibition contained in ORS 471.”
Davis v. Billy's Con-Teena, Inc., 587 P.2d 75 (Or. 1978).
“" In Wiener it was contended by the plaintiff that one of the defendants was negligent in violating ORS 471.410(2) which provides that "no person other than his parent or guardian shall sell, give or otherwise make available any alcoholic liquor to any person under the age of 21…”
State v. McCathern, 154 P.3d 130 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“105 applies to ORS 471.410, which defines the offense of which defendant was convicted.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(3) — 12 cases
City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi, 428 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“Defendant contends that the ordinance prohibits conduct that ORS 471.410 permits. To determine whether that is so, we examine both the ordinance and the statute with which it is claimed to conflict.”
Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016).
“With regard to the context of the statute, defendant observes that ORS 471.565 does not impose a duty on alcohol providers not to serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons and guests.”
State v. James, 338 P.3d 782 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“However, notwithstanding those textual and contextual indications of the potential breadth of the prohibition contained in ORS 471.”
Gattman v. Favro, 739 P.2d 572 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“410(3) to ORS 471.410(1). It also alleged that Borrelli is strictly liable for the injuries which were "directly or proximately caused" by Borrelli, because it "served or provided defendant Favro alcoholic beverages while defendant Favro was visibly intoxicated," in violation of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. James, 338 P.3d 782 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“However, notwithstanding those textual and contextual indications of the potential breadth of the prohibition contained in ORS 471.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(3)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(4) — 2 cases
City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi, 428 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“Defendant contends that the ordinance prohibits conduct that ORS 471.410 permits. To determine whether that is so, we examine both the ordinance and the statute with which it is claimed to conflict.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(5) — 3 cases
City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi, 428 P.3d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“Defendant contends that the ordinance prohibits conduct that ORS 471.410 permits. To determine whether that is so, we examine both the ordinance and the statute with which it is claimed to conflict.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(7) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.410(l) — 1 case
Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016).
“With regard to the context of the statute, defendant observes that ORS 471.565 does not impose a duty on alcohol providers not to serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons and guests.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.