Build It & They Will Drink, Inc. v. Strauch, 253 P.3d 302

Colorado's dram-shop statute 12-47-801 creates the exclusive remedy against alcohol vendors and abolishes common-law actions, with a narrow exception for willful/knowingly serving to underage or visibly intoxicated patrons.
Strauch sued Build It and Beers after a New Year's Eve stabbing by a visibly intoxicated patron (Dickerman) who had been served at Eden Nightclub.
Trial court granted summary judgment on all claims, including dram-shop, based on lack of foreseeability and duty to protect off-premises safety.
Court of Appeals reversed the dram-shop claim, holding foreseeability not required under 12-47-801 and that the statute dictates liability analysis.
Colorado Supreme Court held the statute does not incorporate foreseeability; liability under 12-47-801 turns on willful/knowingly serving to an intoxicated person, not foreseeability.
This opinion affirms the Court of Appeals’ judgment on the dram-shop claim and clarifies the statutory proximate-cause framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 12-47-801 require foreseeability as an element?	Build It argues foreseeability remains relevant.	Strauch argues foreseeability is not required by the statute.	Foreseeability not required; statute governs proximate cause.
Is foreseeability a jury question under 12-47-801?	Foreseeability should be considered by the jury.	Statutory proximate cause does not include foreseeability; not a jury question.	No foreseeability element; jury not asked to determine foreseeability.
What governs proximate cause under 12-47-801—statutory terms or common law?	Common-law foreseeability should control.	Statute defines proximate cause via willful/knowingly serving to intoxicated/underage.	Proximate cause defined by statute; foreseeability not incorporated.
Does the statute create strict liability for liquor vendors?	Statute functions like strict liability.	Requires willful and knowing service, showing fault beyond strict liability.	Not strict liability; liability hinges on willful/knowing service.

Largo v. Crespin, 727 P.2d 1098 (Colo.1986) (established common-law dram-shop action and proximate-cause considerations prior to 12-47-801)
Floyd v. Bartley, 727 P.2d 1109 (Colo.1986) (broadened vendor-liability context leading to statutory reform)
Sigman v. Seafood Ltd. P'ship, 817 P.2d 527 (Colo.1991) (discussed proximate-cause aspects in context of the statute; dicta cited by some analyses)
Observatory Corp. v. Daly, 780 P.2d 462 (Colo.1989) (tavern proprietor duty on premises; relevance limited for dram-shop claims)
Charlton v. Kimata, 815 P.2d 946 (Colo.1991) (statutory interpretation; abolition of common-law actions against vendors)