Wash. Rev. Code » Title 66 · Chapter 66.44
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 66.44.200 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) No person shall sell any liquor to any person apparently under the influence of liquor.
(2)(a) No person who is apparently under the influence of liquor may purchase or consume liquor on any premises licensed by the board.
(b) A violation of this subsection is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.
(c) A defendant's intoxication may not be used as a defense in an action under this subsection.
(d) Until July 1, 2000, every establishment licensed under RCW 66.24.330 or 66.24.420 shall conspicuously post in the establishment notice of the prohibition against the purchase or consumption of liquor under this subsection.
(3) An administrative action for violation of subsection (1) of this section and an infraction issued for violation of subsection (2) of this section arising out of the same incident are separate actions and the outcome of one shall not determine the outcome of the other.
[ 1998 c 259 s 1; 1933 ex.s. c 62 s 36; RRS s 7306-36.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Barrett v. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc., 96 P.3d 386 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barrett v. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc., 96 P.3d 386 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 55× “More specifically, Barrett asserted in his complaint that, “in violation of RCW 66.44.200,” the Lucky Seven had served Maher when he “was obviously intoxicated, under the influence of liquor and apparently under the influence of alcohol.”
Dickinson v. Edwards, 716 P.2d 814 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 8× “" RCW 66.44.200 states: "No person shall sell any liquor to any person apparently under the influence of liquor.”
Est. of Kelly v. Falin, 896 P.2d 1245 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 12× “[4] The Patrons argue that even if the court rejects liability under the common-law rule, RCW 66.44.200 establishes a duty of care on commercial vendors.”
Faust v. Albertson, 222 P.3d 1208 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “This case calls for examination and clarification of the evidence necessary to properly establish a triable issue of fact regarding negligent overservice under RCW 66.44.200(1). *535 FACTS ¶2 Hawkeye Kinkaid died the night his car struck the car driven by Bianca Faust.”
Faust v. Albertson, 222 P.3d 1208 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “This case calls for examination and clarification of the evidence necessary to properly establish a triable issue of fact regarding negligent overservice under RCW 66.44.200(1). FACTS ¶ 2 Hawkeye Kinkaid died the night his car struck the car driven by Bianca Faust.”
Christen v. Lee, 780 P.2d 1307 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 2× “RCW 66.44.200. When he was served at McDougall's, Mr.”
Burkhart v. Harrod, 755 P.2d 759 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “See RCW 66.44.200. This distinction implies that the Legislature intends to treat commercial hosts differently than social hosts.”
Foxworthy v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians Ass'n, 169 P.3d 53 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Foxworthy sued the intoxicated driver and the Tribe, doing business as the Emerald Queen Casino (Casino), for serving the driver an excessive amount of alcohol in violation of Washington’s dram shop act, RCW 66.44.200. Ruling that the sovereign Tribe was immune from Foxworthy’s…”
Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Mkt., Inc., 134 Wash. 2d 468 (Wash. 1998). “Thus, the injured intoxicated adult had no cause of action against the vendor who sold him alcohol.”
Schooley v. Pinch's Deli Mkt., Inc., 951 P.2d 749 (Wash. 1998). “Thus, the injured intoxicated adult had no cause of action against the vendor who sold him alcohol.”
Reynolds v. Hicks, 134 Wash. 2d 491 (Wash. 1998). “We applied this purpose to RCW 66.44.200 and found the Legislature did not intend to protect the adult drunk driver because “[u]n-like an innocent bystander hit by a drunk driver or a youth whose sense of immortality leads to reckless abandon, the responsibility for…”
Reynolds v. Hicks, 951 P.2d 761 (Wash. 1998). “We applied this purpose to RCW 66.44.200 and found the Legislature did not intend to protect the adult *769 drunk driver because "[u]nlike an innocent bystander hit by a drunk driver or a youth whose sense of immortality leads to reckless abandon, the responsibility for…”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 66.44.200(1) — 11 cases
Barrett v. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc., 96 P.3d 386 (Wash. 2004). “More specifically, Barrett asserted in his complaint that, “in violation of RCW 66.44.200,” the Lucky Seven had served Maher when he “was obviously intoxicated, under the influence of liquor and apparently under the influence of alcohol.”
Faust v. Albertson, 222 P.3d 1208 (Wash. 2009). “This case calls for examination and clarification of the evidence necessary to properly establish a triable issue of fact regarding negligent overservice under RCW 66.44.200(1). *535 FACTS ¶2 Hawkeye Kinkaid died the night his car struck the car driven by Bianca Faust.”
Faust v. Albertson, 222 P.3d 1208 (Wash. 2009). “This case calls for examination and clarification of the evidence necessary to properly establish a triable issue of fact regarding negligent overservice under RCW 66.44.200(1). FACTS ¶ 2 Hawkeye Kinkaid died the night his car struck the car driven by Bianca Faust.”
Barrett v. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc., 96 P.3d 386 (Wash. 2004).
Nicholas Mortensen v. v. Robert Moravec (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
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.