Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-10-101 (2026)
Proximate cause
✓ current as of May 2026
The general assembly hereby finds and declares that the consumption of any alcoholic beverage or beer rather than the furnishing of any alcoholic beverage or beer is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.
Acts 1986, ch. 519, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1990–2018 · leading case: Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462 (Tenn. 2005).
Biscan v. Brown, 160 S.W.3d 462 (Tenn. 2005). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 57-10-101 (2002) ("section 101").”
Worley v. Weigels, Inc., 919 S.W.2d 589 (Tenn. 1996). “gligence; the damages allegedly sustained were caused or contributed to by the negligence of Kaiser, and any recovery should be diminished by the percentage of negligence attributable to said non-party; the damages were caused or contributed to by the negligence of Goosie, and…”
Tip's Package Store, Inc. v. Com. Ins. Managers, Inc., 86 S.W.3d 543 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Defendants argue that the judgment was not entered in compliance with Tenn Code Ann. § 57-10-101 and 102. These statutes provide: § 57-10-101.”
Montgomery Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Kali Orexi, LLC, 303 S.W.3d 281 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Montgomery (“the Deceased”), brought suit under the Tennessee Dram Shop Act (“the Dram Shop Act” or “the Act”), Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 57-10-101 and 102 (2002).”
Leonard Gamble v. Sputniks, LLC, 368 S.W.3d 431 (Tenn. 2012). “Additionally, plaintiffs made no allegations stating a cause of action under the Tennessee Dram Shop Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 et seq. (2002 & Supp. 2011).”
LaRue v. 1817 Lake Inc., 966 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “As the parties recognize, our analysis is governed by T.C.A §§ 57-10-101 and 102, which state: 57-10-101.”
Green v. Johnson, 249 S.W.3d 313 (Tenn. 2008). “The Greens alleged that, under the doctrines of negligence, agency, and comparative fault and pursuant to the Dram Shop statutes, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 57-10-101, -102 (2004), The Pub, its employees, Vicki Johnson, Tabatha Con-nor, and Carroll Blankenship were all liable for their…”
Wegleitner v. Sattler, 1998 SD 88 (S.D. 1998). “" TCA 57-10-101. Unlike South Dakota, the Tennessee legislature, however, has enacted public policy exceptions to the common law rule allowing civil liability where a plaintiff establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the "sale" was the proximate cause of the injury and that…”
Jackson v. Cadillac Cowboy, Inc., 986 S.W.2d 410 (Ark. 1999). “But § 57-10-102 sets up a standard of proof notwithstanding § 57-10-101: A jury of twelve must ascertain beyond a reasonable doubt that the sale of alcohol to a person known to be under 21 or obviously intoxicated caused the injury as a direct result of the consumption of the…”
Smith v. Sewell, 858 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. 1993). “(1987); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 57-10-101, 57-10-102 (1989); Tex.”
Puckett v. Roberson, 183 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “The Roberson also rely upon the provisions of T.C.A. § 57-10-101, which states that the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person is the consumption of alcoholic beverages or beer rather than the furnishing of same.”
Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Gray, 803 S.W.2d 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). “The complaint alleges that McLemore’s Market sold beer to Battenfield and Gray, both minors, in violation of T.C.A. § 57-10-101 and § 57-10-102, and that Gray conspired with Battenfield to “go out on the night of the accident and drink until they were both intoxicated past the…”
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.