Opinion ID: 2201124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the dramshop act, name and retain provision

Text: The preamble of the Michigan liquor control act states that the purposes of the act are, in part, to provide for the control of the alcoholic liquor traffic within the state of Michigan, ... to provide for the enforcement and to prescribe penalties for violations of this act. A measure of the state's power of control and licensing is evidenced by what is known as the dramshop act, MCL 436.22; MSA 18.993. Subsection (3) of the act forbids a licensee to sell, furnish, give, or deliver alcoholic liquor to a person who is visibly intoxicated, and imposes liability for violations. Subsection (5) of the act provides the requirements and procedures for bringing an action for injuries caused by furnishing alcohol to intoxicated persons. The language of section (5) of the statute, which is relevant to this case, is known as the name and retain provision: An action against a retailer, wholesaler, or anyone covered by this act or a surety, shall not be commenced unless the minor or the alleged intoxicated person is a named defendant in the action and is retained in the action until the litigation is concluded by trial or settlement. [Emphasis added.] Because the Legislature did not define the parameters of named or retained, it is the duty of this Court to provide definitional guidance within the boundaries of legislative intent. In Putney v Haskins and Tebo v Havlik , we articulated the requirements for an alleged intoxicated person to be named and retained in accordance with the act. [2]