Opinion ID: 1347026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Visibly Intoxicated

Text: Appellants contend that the trial court erred in failing to adopt their requested instruction to the jury that [b]efore you can find the defendant liable, the plaintiff must prove that Hoyt Helton was visibly intoxicated. We disagree. As noted above, the court of appeals established in Daley that a third party injured by the actions of an intoxicated person served in violation of the earlier version of section 61-4-580 may pursue a civil action against the vendor. Daley, 303 S.C. at 84, 399 S.E.2d at 14. Section 61-4-580 prohibits the holder of a permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine from knowingly selling beer or wine to an intoxicated person. S.C.Code Ann. § 61-4-580 (2009). The statute does not contain a requirement that the intoxicated person be visibly intoxicated, only that a person knowingly sell beer or wine to an intoxicated person. Consequently, the trial court's refusal to adopt Appellants' proposed instruction was not error. Appellants would have this Court adopt a new standard allowing for liability only where the intoxicated person is visibly intoxicated. We see no reason to adopt Appellants' proposal. Though the present case focused on the visible symptoms exhibited by Helton while at The Getaway, other cases under section § 61-4-580 might concern knowledge acquired through a different medium. [2]