Opinion ID: 2823818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dram Shop Act

Text: Â¶47Â Â Â Â Â Â Grohâs complaint does not include a claim against the Westin under the Dram Shop Act of the Colorado Liquor Code, section 12-47-801, C.R.S. (2014). 10 In addition, it is undisputed that the Westin did not serve or provide any alcohol to Groh or her companions. The alcohol in the room apparently went untouched. Â¶48Â Â Â Â Â Â Nevertheless, the Westin seeks to invoke the Actâs protection by arguing that it would be unreasonable to hold a nonprovider of alcohol liable for injuries stemming from voluntary intoxication while providing the actual providers of alcohol withÂ limited liability. It also cites the Act as an example of how public policy supports holding intoxicated people responsible for their own actions. Â¶49Â Â Â Â Â Â Despite their logical underpinnings, these arguments fail based on the plain language of the Act. The Act abolishes common law actions against liquor licensees and social hosts who sell or serve alcoholic beverages and makes the liability of alcohol vendors a creature of statute. See Â§ 12-47-801(1); see, e.g., Charlton v. Kimata, 815 P.2d 946, 948â49 (Colo. 1991) (stating that the liability of alcohol vendors and social hosts âhas been strictly a creature of statuteâ since the Actâs passage). It âprovides the sole means for someone injured by an intoxicated person to obtain a remedy from the vendor who sold or provided alcohol to the intoxicated person.â Build It & They Will Drink, 253 P.3d at 303 (emphasis added). And, âin certain casesâ not relevant here, it defines the proximate cause of injuries or damages inflicted on another by an intoxicated person in terms of âthe consumption of alcohol beverages rather than the sale, service, or provision thereof.â Â§ 12-47-801(1). Simply put, the Westin does not fall within the Actâs purview because it did not sell, serve, or otherwise provide alcohol to Groh or her companions. Â¶50Â Â Â Â Â Â Although the Act does not protect the Westin from liability for negligence, the concept of individual responsibility that underlies it may still come into play. The jury may factor this into its determination of whether the Westin breached its duty to Groh and whether its actions during the eviction were the proximate cause of Grohâs injuries.