Opinion ID: 2204777
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sold and Served Requirement

Text: One can also legitimately infer Shagnasty's sold and served beer to Doe. Doe was holding a beer in a bar that sold beer. That Smith has not mustered any direct evidence that a particular Shagnasty's employee served Doe this beer is not fatal to her claim. A plaintiff need not produce the actual server or servers of the alcohol in order to prove a dramshop claim. Horak, 648 N.W.2d at 148. Circumstantial evidence is equally probative as direct evidence. Iowa R.App. P. 6.4(6)( p ). A plaintiff may meet [the `sold and served' requirement with proof] that an establishment where alcohol is sold generally holds itself out as a place where persons are `served' in the ordinary sense of the word, i.e., one providing premises where orders are taken, patrons are waited on, and drinks are supplied in open containers. Kelly v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 476 N.W.2d 341, 346 (Iowa 1991); see also Iowa Code § 123.110 (It shall not be necessary in every case to prove payment in order to prove a sale within the meaning and intent of this chapter.). Shagnasty's does not dispute that it is such an establishment. For these reasons, the district court's grant of summary judgment to Shagnasty's on the sold and served element of Smith's dramshop claim was improper.