Car Accident Dram Shop Claims In Virginia Are Tough

Car Accident Dram Shop Claims

Brien Roche

Dram shop liability in the Fairfax, Virginia area is thought by most lawyers to be a dead letter. Virginia does not impose a duty on vendors to oversee the sobriety of its patrons.

Dram shop liability is based on the idea that vendors have received a license to sell or serve liquor to the public. With that license goes certain duties to make sure that patrons do not drive drunk. However in Virginia that latter duty does not exist.

Before bringing such claims there are a number of matters that need to be looked at:

Cameras that show the driver.

Written training items issued by the vendor for employees. These may outline duties of employees in terms of dealing with patrons that have consumed too much.

The liquor license application and other data relating to the vendor with the State Alcoholic Control Board.

Police reports from prior incidents dealing with that vendor.

Credit card receipts provide proof of what was ordered by the patron.

Call, or contact us for a free consult.

Car Accident Dram Shop Claims

This area being a tri-state area it may well be that in some cases the vendor is not in Virginia but rather is elsewhere. Therefore your target may not be subject to suit simply in Fairfax County. The target may be subject to suit in the locale where that vendor, whether it be a bar owner, liquor store or otherwise, is located.

In looking at any such vendor claims you must gather the proof needed to support the claim. Aside from the above such proof may come in the form of video tapes of field sobriety tests by the arresting officer. In addition there may be videos of breathalyzer tests that were taken at the police station. In addition you may need testimony from a toxicologist setting the timeline when he bought and consumed the alcohol. From that the expert can project as to the driver’s blood alcohol level at the time when the liquor was served or sold.

In many cases vendors have their own training for recognizing people that should not be served. That type of training info can be used to prove what the defendant knew was reasonable. This is all based on the facts and what they should have done.

Likewise, the lack of any standards or training by a vendor may be your best proof.