Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.565 (2026)

Liability for providing or serving alcoholic beverages to intoxicated person; notice of claim

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      471.565 Liability for providing or serving alcoholic beverages to intoxicated person; notice of claim. (1) A patron or guest who voluntarily consumes alcoholic beverages served by a person licensed by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, a person holding a permit issued by the commission or a social host does not have a cause of action, based on statute or common law, against the person serving the alcoholic beverages, even though the alcoholic beverages are served to the patron or guest while the patron or guest is visibly intoxicated. The provisions of this subsection apply only to claims for relief based on injury, death or damages caused by intoxication and do not apply to claims for relief based on injury, death or damages caused by negligent or intentional acts other than the service of alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated patron or guest.

      (2) A person licensed by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, person holding a permit issued by the commission or social host is not liable for damages caused by intoxicated patrons or guests unless the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that:

      (a) The licensee, permittee or social host served or provided alcoholic beverages to the patron or guest while the patron or guest was visibly intoxicated; and

      (b) The plaintiff did not substantially contribute to the intoxication of the patron or guest by:

      (A) Providing or furnishing alcoholic beverages to the patron or guest;

      (B) Encouraging the patron or guest to consume or purchase alcoholic beverages or in any other manner; or

      (C) Facilitating the consumption of alcoholic beverages by the patron or guest in any manner.

      (3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, an action for damages caused by intoxicated patrons or guests off the premises of a person licensed by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, a person holding a permit issued by the commission or a social host may be brought only if the person asserting the claim has given the licensee, permittee or social host the notice required by subsection (5) of this section within the following time periods:

      (a) If a claim is made for damages arising out of wrongful death, notice must be given within one year after the date of death, or within one year after the date that the person asserting the claim discovers or reasonably should have discovered the existence of a claim under this section, whichever is later.

      (b) If a claim is made for damages for injuries other than wrongful death, notice must be given within 180 days after the injury occurs, or within 180 days after the person asserting the claim discovers or reasonably should have discovered the existence of a claim under this section, whichever is later.

      (4) The time provided for the giving of notice under subsection (3) of this section does not include any period during which:

      (a) The claimant is under 18 years of age;

      (b) The claimant is unable to give notice by reason of the injury or by reason of being financially incapable, as defined in ORS 125.005, or is incapacitated, as defined in ORS 125.005; or

      (c) The claimant is unable to determine that the licensee, permittee or social host is liable because the patron or guest who caused the damages asserts a right against self-incrimination and cannot be compelled to reveal the identity of the licensee, permittee or social host, or cannot be compelled to reveal facts that would establish the liability of the licensee, permittee or social host.

      (5) A licensee, permittee or social host shall be considered to have been given notice for the purposes of this section if:

      (a) The licensee, permittee or social host is given formal notice in the manner specified in subsection (6) of this section;

      (b) The licensee, permittee or social host receives actual notice as described in subsection (7) of this section;

      (c) An action is commenced by or on behalf of the claimant within the period of time specified by subsections (3) and (4) of this section; or

      (d) Any payment on the claim is made to the claimant by or on behalf of the licensee, permittee or social host.

      (6) Formal notice of a claim subject to this section must be in writing, must be mailed to the licensee, permittee or social host, or personally served on the licensee, permittee or social host, and must contain all of the following:

      (a) A statement that a claim for damages is made against the licensee, permittee or social host.

      (b) A description of the time, place and circumstances giving rise to the claim, so far as known to the claimant.

      (c) The name of the claimant and mailing address for the claimant to which correspondence regarding the claim may be mailed.

      (7) For the purposes of this section, “actual notice” means any communication to a licensee, permittee or social host that gives the licensee, permittee or social host actual knowledge of the time, place and circumstances of the claim, if the communication is such that a reasonable person would conclude that a particular person intends to assert a claim against the licensee, permittee or social host. [Formerly 30.950; 2021 c.351 §123]

 

      Note: 471.565 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 471 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case: Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016).
Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016). · cites it 35× “In his statutory liability claim, plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent “in serving and/or providing alcohol to [Bunch] when she was visibly intoxicated in violation of ORS 471.565.” In his motion to dismiss, defendant argued that ORS 471.”
Baker v. Croslin, 376 P.3d 267 (Or. 2016). · cites it 23× “That statute was amended several times again in ways not pertinent here before being renumbered as ORS 471.565 in 2001.”
Mason v. BCK Corp., 426 P.3d 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 30× “For instance, at the time that ORS 471.565 (2)(b) was enacted, the term "substantially contributes" had appeared in Oregon tort cases involving multiple tortfeasors, *590 describing the degree of participation that would subject any single tortfeasor to liability.”
Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc., 302 P.3d 460 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 23× “3 We conclude, however, that the context of ORS 471.565(1) and the circumstances surrounding its adoption, as well as more conventional legislative history, demonstrate that defendant’s definition is the most plausible.”
Balzer v. Moore, 427 P.3d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 21× “ORS 471.565 provides, in relevant part: "(2) A person licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, person holding a permit issued by the *161 commission or social host is not liable for damages caused by intoxicated patrons or guests unless the plaintiff proves by clear and…”
Bonner v. Am. Golf Corp. of California, 372 Or. 814 (Or. 2024). · cites it 62× “950 (1983), renumbered as ORS 471.565 (2001) (providing that licensee who served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron was liable for damages caused by that patron off the licens- ee’s business premises) authorized a claim by an intoxicated person against a person who served…”
Baker v. Croslin, 330 P.3d 698 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 17× “Plaintiffs complaint alleged that defendant was negligent (1) in “unreasonably serving Smith alcohol while Smith was in a visibly intoxicated state,” (2) in “unreasonably encouraging quick draw handgun activity while Smith was in a visibly intoxicated state,” and (3) in…”
Bonner v. Am. Golf Corp. of California, 372 Or. 814 (Or. 2024). · cites it 62× “412(1); ORS 471.565 (2)(a). But, again, none of those statutes defines the phrase “visibly intoxicated.”
Chapman v. Mayfield, 361 P.3d 566 (Or. 2015). · cites it 2× “950 (1979), renumbered as ORS 471.565 (2001), which *216 codified the holding in Campbell , did not limit common-law liability based on the manner in which the intoxicated person injured the plaintiff, and that the legislative history of former ORS 30.”
Wilda v. Roe, 415 P.3d 1146 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 18× “" Read together, the prohibition in subsection (1) is a prohibition on "cause[s] of action" that are "claims for relief based on injury, death or damages caused by intoxication." What is unclear is whether the third-party complaint in this case-one that seeks to add a defendant…”
Deckard v. Bunch, 340 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 16× “1 The issue in this case is whether ORS 471.565 creates statutory liability by which a person injured in an automobile accident may bring a claim against the social host who provided alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person.”
State v. James, 338 P.3d 782 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “410(2), as we have observed, 266 Or App at 671 n 8, we note that our focus on whether defendant had control over the alcohol supply is consistent with our interpretation of ORS 471.565(2)(a) in Baker v. Croslin, 264 Or App 196 , 330 P3d 698 (2014).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.565(1) — 8 cases
Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc., 302 P.3d 460 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “3 We conclude, however, that the context of ORS 471.565(1) and the circumstances surrounding its adoption, as well as more conventional legislative history, demonstrate that defendant’s definition is the most plausible.”
Bonner v. Am. Golf Corp. of California, 372 Or. 814 (Or. 2024). “950 (1983), renumbered as ORS 471.565 (2001) (providing that licensee who served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron was liable for damages caused by that patron off the licens- ee’s business premises) authorized a claim by an intoxicated person against a person who served…”
Bonner v. Am. Golf Corp. of California, 372 Or. 814 (Or. 2024). “412(1); ORS 471.565 (2)(a). But, again, none of those statutes defines the phrase “visibly intoxicated.”
Wilda v. Roe, 415 P.3d 1146 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “" Read together, the prohibition in subsection (1) is a prohibition on "cause[s] of action" that are "claims for relief based on injury, death or damages caused by intoxication." What is unclear is whether the third-party complaint in this case-one that seeks to add a defendant…”
Nancy Doty, Inc. v. Wildcat Haven, Inc., 439 P.3d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.565(2) — 10 cases
Baker v. Croslin, 376 P.3d 267 (Or. 2016). “That statute was amended several times again in ways not pertinent here before being renumbered as ORS 471.565 in 2001.”
Deckard v. Bunch, 370 P.3d 478 (Or. 2016). “In his statutory liability claim, plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent “in serving and/or providing alcohol to [Bunch] when she was visibly intoxicated in violation of ORS 471.565.” In his motion to dismiss, defendant argued that ORS 471.”
Mason v. BCK Corp., 426 P.3d 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “For instance, at the time that ORS 471.565 (2)(b) was enacted, the term "substantially contributes" had appeared in Oregon tort cases involving multiple tortfeasors, *590 describing the degree of participation that would subject any single tortfeasor to liability.”
Wingett v. Silbernagel, 379 P.3d 570 (Linn Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
Moody v. Oregon Cmty. Credit Union, 505 P.3d 1047 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.565(2)(B) — 1 case
Balzer v. Moore, 427 P.3d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “ORS 471.565 provides, in relevant part: "(2) A person licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, person holding a permit issued by the *161 commission or social host is not liable for damages caused by intoxicated patrons or guests unless the plaintiff proves by clear and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.565(2)(a) — 5 cases
State v. James, 338 P.3d 782 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “410(2), as we have observed, 266 Or App at 671 n 8, we note that our focus on whether defendant had control over the alcohol supply is consistent with our interpretation of ORS 471.565(2)(a) in Baker v. Croslin, 264 Or App 196 , 330 P3d 698 (2014).”
Mason v. BCK Corp., 426 P.3d 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “For instance, at the time that ORS 471.565 (2)(b) was enacted, the term "substantially contributes" had appeared in Oregon tort cases involving multiple tortfeasors, *590 describing the degree of participation that would subject any single tortfeasor to liability.”
Baker v. Croslin, 330 P.3d 698 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Plaintiffs complaint alleged that defendant was negligent (1) in “unreasonably serving Smith alcohol while Smith was in a visibly intoxicated state,” (2) in “unreasonably encouraging quick draw handgun activity while Smith was in a visibly intoxicated state,” and (3) in…”
Bonner v. Am. Golf Corp. of California, 372 Or. 814 (Or. 2024). “950 (1983), renumbered as ORS 471.565 (2001) (providing that licensee who served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron was liable for damages caused by that patron off the licens- ee’s business premises) authorized a claim by an intoxicated person against a person who served…”
Bonner v. Am. Golf Corp. of California, 372 Or. 814 (Or. 2024). “412(1); ORS 471.565 (2)(a). But, again, none of those statutes defines the phrase “visibly intoxicated.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.565(2)(b) — 4 cases
Mason v. BCK Corp., 426 P.3d 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “For instance, at the time that ORS 471.565 (2)(b) was enacted, the term "substantially contributes" had appeared in Oregon tort cases involving multiple tortfeasors, *590 describing the degree of participation that would subject any single tortfeasor to liability.”
Balzer v. Moore, 427 P.3d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “ORS 471.565 provides, in relevant part: "(2) A person licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, person holding a permit issued by the *161 commission or social host is not liable for damages caused by intoxicated patrons or guests unless the plaintiff proves by clear and…”
Baker v. Croslin, 330 P.3d 698 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Plaintiffs complaint alleged that defendant was negligent (1) in “unreasonably serving Smith alcohol while Smith was in a visibly intoxicated state,” (2) in “unreasonably encouraging quick draw handgun activity while Smith was in a visibly intoxicated state,” and (3) in…”
Deckard v. Bunch, 340 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “1 The issue in this case is whether ORS 471.565 creates statutory liability by which a person injured in an automobile accident may bring a claim against the social host who provided alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.565(2)(b)(A) — 2 cases
Mason v. BCK Corp., 426 P.3d 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “For instance, at the time that ORS 471.565 (2)(b) was enacted, the term "substantially contributes" had appeared in Oregon tort cases involving multiple tortfeasors, *590 describing the degree of participation that would subject any single tortfeasor to liability.”
Balzer v. Moore, 427 P.3d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “ORS 471.565 provides, in relevant part: "(2) A person licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, person holding a permit issued by the *161 commission or social host is not liable for damages caused by intoxicated patrons or guests unless the plaintiff proves by clear and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.565(2)(b)(B) — 2 cases
Mason v. BCK Corp., 426 P.3d 206 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “For instance, at the time that ORS 471.565 (2)(b) was enacted, the term "substantially contributes" had appeared in Oregon tort cases involving multiple tortfeasors, *590 describing the degree of participation that would subject any single tortfeasor to liability.”
Balzer v. Moore, 427 P.3d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “ORS 471.565 provides, in relevant part: "(2) A person licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, person holding a permit issued by the *161 commission or social host is not liable for damages caused by intoxicated patrons or guests unless the plaintiff proves by clear and…”
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.