Dram Shop Laws in Pennsylvania:  What They Cover and How Liability is Evaluated

In Pennsylvania, Dram Shop Law holds bars, restaurants and any liquor licensee liable if they serve alcohol to an underage customer or a customer that is visibly intoxicated.  At the same time, the law places limits on liability and requires plaintiffs to meet specific evidentiary burdens before responsibility may be imposed. There is a statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for filing a dram shop case.  The statute 42 Pa.Cons. State 552(2)(2024) gives you two (2) years to file your lawsuit.  The clock starts ticking on the date you were injured. 

There are two statutes in Pennsylvania that are considered Dram Shop Statutes. In case you are wondering the term “dram” comes from an old unit of liquid measurement. The first is 47 P.S. 4-493-(1)(2024), which makes it illegal for a licensee to sell or serve alcohol to a person who is “visibly intoxicated” or to a minor.  The second statute is 47 P.S. 4-497(2024) states that a licensee can only be liable for injuries that happen off the licensee’s premises when the licensee sold or served alcoholic beverages to a customer who was visibly intoxicated:

“No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off the licensed premise by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malted or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employee when the said customer was visibly intoxicated.”

It seems pretty straightforward.  However, how do you prove that someone is visibly intoxicated?  A plaintiff must prove not only that alcohol was served, but that the patron exhibited visible signs of intoxication at the time of service and that this service was the proximate cause of the resulting injury.  Imagine owning a bar or restaurant.  A patron walks in who has already visited several establishments.  They could definitely be and probably are over the legal limit.   Does this make them look visibly intoxicated? How does a plaintiff prove this?  Is someone who is over the legal limit always going to seem “visibly intoxicated”?  The answer is ambiguous at best.  People hold their liquor differently.  While one person could have one drink and appear drunk, another could drink a six pack and appear just fine.  Just because your blood alcohol level is over the limit does not always correspond that being externally apparent.  Not every intoxicated person looks intoxicated. 

This poses a problem for some bars and restaurants when a dram shop action is brought against them.  From the establishments perspective, service decisions are often made in fast-paced environments based on observable behavior at the moment.  Bartenders and servers are making judgment calls in real time and often in crowded and noisy conditions.   Are there cameras that recorded the visit of the patron?  In most instances, these recording devices only store video for a matter of days.  By the time a case is filed, the stored video (if it even exists) has long been erased.  There is no way to eliminate the dram shop risk entirely.  However, there are steps bars and restaurants can take to protect themselves.

An issue that is often raised by plaintiffs in dram shop cases is  the training (or lack thereof) of the employees of the establishment.  In Pennsylvania, establishments that serve alcohol are required to train their employees to recognize indicators of intoxication and to serve alcohol responsibly.  TIPS (Training for Intervention ProcedureS) is designed to educate servers on what to look for – slurred speech, impaired coordination, changes in behavior – and when service should be refused.  In a recent litigation, we have seen plaintiffs focus not only on if the patron was overserved but on whether the establishment can prove it took responsible training of its staff seriously.  In one such case, the plaintiff raised whether the bar required its employees, including waitstaff and bartenders, to complete the TIPS program and the bars actual compliance. 

While the training does not guarantee any establishment against dram shop claims, it does help establish that service decisions came from a place based on recognized, industry accepted standards.  Just as importantly, it reinforces that service decisions are evaluated based on observable behavior at the time. Alcohol serving establishments are best protected when training is combined with documentation and consistency.  Retaining surveillance footage for a longer period of time is also recommended and an ability to pull point of sale records that can demonstrate responsible service practices. 

Dram shop cases hinge on credibility.  When an establishment can demonstrate that it follow the appropriate  service training, required employee certification, and that its staff was trained to recognize visible intoxication they are far better positioned to defend against dram shop claims.  When a plaintiff can establish clear evidence of visible intoxication and causation, the legal framework provides a means for fair adjudication on both sides.   Musi, Mattson, Daubenberger & Clark, L.L.P represents both alcohol serving establishments and individuals injured by over-service, which provides us with a comprehensive perspective on dram shop liability from both sides of the issue.