Georgia Court of Appeal rules in favor of bar in drunk driver case

Fatal accident as drunk Army soldier in high-speed collision

Georgia Court of Appeal rules in favor of bar in drunk driver case

Legal Insights

By

The Georgia Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision, ruling in favor of SEPID, LLC, doing business as GATA’s Sports Bar and Grill, in a case concerning liability under Georgia's Dram Shop Act. The case involved claims of wrongful death and personal injury following a fatal accident caused by an intoxicated driver, Antoine McLendon, who had been served alcohol at GATA’s. 

In January 2019, Antoine McLendon, a US Army soldier stationed at Fort Stewart, visited GATA’s Sports Bar and Grill after consuming alcohol at another establishment. He was accompanied by a designated driver, Trevor Jenkins, who ensured McLendon was transported safely to and from the bar. Despite this, after returning to his barracks, McLendon chose to drive his own vehicle, leading to a high-speed collision that resulted in the death of Albert Dock and injuries to Deven Merchant and David Jackson. 

Tamara Nicole Dock, representing the estate of Albert Dock, and Deven Merchant filed lawsuits against GATA’s, alleging that the bar negligently served alcohol to McLendon, knowing he was intoxicated and would soon be driving, thus seeking damages under Georgia's Dram Shop Act. 

The Georgia Court of Appeals focused on the requirements of the Dram Shop Act, which stipulates that an establishment can be held liable if it "knowingly sells, furnishes, or serves alcoholic beverages to a person who is in a state of noticeable intoxication, knowing that such person will soon be driving a motor vehicle." 

The court found that: 

  • Lack of knowledge of immediate driving intent: GATA’s staff had no reason to believe McLendon would drive soon, as he arrived and departed with a designated driver. There was no evidence indicating that McLendon expressed an intention to drive after leaving the bar. 
  • No duty to investigate future actions: The law does not impose an obligation on establishments to ascertain a patron's plans after they have left the premises, especially when they have been provided safe transportation. 

Given these findings, the court concluded that GATA’s did not have the requisite knowledge that McLendon would soon be driving and, therefore, could not be held liable under the Dram Shop Act. The previous denial of summary judgment by the lower court was reversed, effectively dismissing the claims against GATA’s. 

This ruling underscores the importance of actual knowledge of a patron's intent to drive in establishing liability under Georgia's Dram Shop Act. It also highlights the protections afforded to establishments that take reasonable steps to ensure intoxicated patrons are not driving, such as facilitating designated drivers. 

For the families affected, while this decision absolves GATA’s of liability, avenues for legal recourse against the individual responsible, McLendon, remain open. 

Brief summary of Georgia’s Dram Shop Act (OCGA § 51-1-40) 

Georgia’s Dram Shop Act (OCGA § 51-1-40) establishes when alcohol vendors (such as bars, restaurants, and liquor stores) or social hosts can be held liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated person

Under the law, businesses or individuals who serve alcohol are generally not liable for damages caused by an intoxicated person unless: 

  1. They knowingly served alcohol to a person who was noticeably intoxicated, and 
  2. They knew that the intoxicated person would soon be driving a motor vehicle. 

The law makes it clear that the consumption of alcohol - not the act of serving it - is the direct cause of intoxication and any resulting harm. However, if a vendor or social host knowingly provides alcohol to an intoxicated person who they are aware will be driving soon, they can be held legally responsible for any injuries, deaths, or property damage caused by that driver. 

The Dram Shop Act serves to protect alcohol-serving businesses from excessive liability while also ensuring accountability in cases where establishments knowingly contribute to dangerous drunk-driving situations. 

Note: Specific details regarding the insurance companies involved were not disclosed in the court's decision. 

Related Stories

Keep up with the latest news and events

Join our mailing list, it’s free!

IB+ Data Hub

The Ultimate Data Intelligence Platform for Insurance Professionals

Unlock powerful dashboards and industry insights with IB+ Data Hub—your essential subscription for data-driven decision-making.