Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a plaintiff alleging negligent service of alcohol may establish that a patron appeared intoxicated through direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, or a combination of these. The court vacated summary judgment for the tavern because evidence concerning the patron’s blood alcohol level, drinking history, and customary signs of intoxication could permit a jury to find that he appeared intoxicated when served his final drink.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that Gagne appeared intoxicated when LMR served him his last drink.
- Whether circumstantial evidence and expert testimony relating blood alcohol concentration to visible signs of intoxication may establish apparent intoxication at the time of service.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the negligent service of alcohol claim.
Holdings
- A plaintiff must provide evidence that the patron's intoxication was apparent at the time the defendant served the alcohol, but the plaintiff need prove that element only by a preponderance of the evidence and may rely on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, or a combination of those forms of evidence.
- Evidence that permits a jury to infer that a patron probably appeared intoxicated when served is sufficient to defeat summary judgment, even when the evidence includes an expert calculation relating a later blood alcohol level to the patron's condition at the time of the last service.
- The Superior Court erred in granting summary judgment because the plaintiff's affidavits and deposition testimony permitted an inference that Gagne was visibly intoxicated when served his final drink.
Key quotations
“Thus, the only burden on the plaintiff here is to show that it is more probable than not that Gagne appeared intoxicated at the time he was served his last rum and coke.” (433 Mass. at 164)
“Evidence of apparent intoxication, or of elevated blood alcohol levels, at some later point in time does not, by itself, suffice to show that the patron's intoxication was evident at the time the last drink was served.” (433 Mass. at 165)
“Where the plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment motion included affidavits and deposition testimony demonstrating that plaintiff had sufficient evidence to permit the inference that Gagne was visibly intoxicated at the time he was served his final drink, it was error to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment.” (433 Mass. at 168)
Factual background
LMR, Inc. operated a tavern where Steven Gagne drank rum and cokes for approximately four hours before leaving and colliding with Robert Douillard's vehicle. A hospital blood sample taken roughly two hours after Gagne's last drink showed a blood alcohol concentration of .149 percent. The plaintiff's expert calculated that Gagne's blood alcohol level was approximately .154 percent when served his last drink and opined that this level ordinarily produces observable signs of intoxication. Additional testimony showed that Gagne became intoxicated and exhibited outward signs after consuming seven rum and cokes, while the expert calculated that Gagne had consumed at least nine drinks that evening.
Procedural history
The Superior Court ruled that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the patron's intoxication was apparent when the defendant served him alcohol. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.
Remand instructions
Remand to the Superior Court for trial and further proceedings consistent with the opinion.