ADVERTISEMENT



Google       
Call (866) 635-2689 for a free Personal Injury evaluation by attorney in your area.

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Missouri Injury Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Personal Injury Law

: Missouri Injury Law Blog

Drunk Driving Accident Lawsuits in Missouri - Making a Negligence Claim Against the Bar that Over-Served the Missouri Drunk Driver

By Benjamin J. Sansone, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS

Under Missouri dram shop statute, the victims of Missouri personal injury or the family of the Missouri wrongful death victim caused by an intoxicated or drunk driver may have a cause of action against the establishment that served the Missouri drunk driver that caused a car crash or hits a pedestrian.

Missouri Statute § 537.053, Sale of alcoholic beverage may be proximate cause of personal injuries or death

... a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death against any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years or knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.

warning%20-%20drunk%20driving%20accident%20st%20louis%20injury%20lawyer.jpgHow do you prove by "clear and convincing" evidence that the bartender knew or should have known the drunk driver was "visibly intoxicated"? See St Louis Injury Attorney Article: ... Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated

However, in a Missouri dram shop lawsuit, proving "visible intoxication" is more difficult than simply showing the driver was legally intoxicated. For example, under the above dram shop statute, Missouri Statute § 537.503, blood alcohol content is simple relevant to proving a person was visibly intoxicated, but does not prove it. So what else, clearly a St Louis DWI personal injury lawyer would hire a toxicologist to testify, but what about testimony from someone else at the bar that served the at fault driver? the bartender? they obviously are not going to admit they served a visibly intoxicated, so you are left with tracking down other patrons at the bar, which is hard enough, much less finding one that remembers the drunk driver who caused a car accident and that they were visibly intoxicated.

So is an eye witness required? Recently a Missouri trial court ruled through summary judgment that eye witness testimony is required to prove that the Missouri drunk driver who caused a car accident was visibly intoxicated at a bar in order to be able to hold that establishment liable under Missouri's dram shop law. This issue is currently up on appeal and for an excellent analysis of the Missouri dram shop law and its application see: Amicus Brief - Missouri Dram Shop Law Appeal regarding Proof of Visible Intoxication

Full post as published by Missouri Injury Law Blog on February 18, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0133 secs (new cache)