Privett v. QSL-Milford, L.L.C.
2013 Ohio 4129
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Privett v. QSL-Milford concerns Ohio Dram Shop Act liability for a bartender/permit holder.
- QSL-Milford operates Quaker Steak & Lube with a parking-lot beer booth during Bike Night, where alcohol is sold.
- On Aug. 17, 2011, Jason Carpenter drank several beers over about 3 hours with coworkers Swartz and Sanchez.
- Carpenter later died in a motorcycle crash after leaving the restaurant; Privett family members were injured.
- Privett asserted QSL knowingly served a visibly intoxicated person, seeking damages; the trial court granted QSL summary judgment.
- Appellate review was de novo; the issue is whether actual knowledge of intoxication was proven; constructive knowledge is insufficient under the Dram Shop Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether QSL had actual knowledge Carpenter was intoxicated when served. | Privett argues Sanchez and others showed Carpenter’s intoxication. | QSL contends there is no evidence of actual knowledge by staff. | No genuine issue of material fact; actual knowledge not shown; summary judgment for QSL affirmed. |
| Whether constructive knowledge is sufficient to sustain a Dram Shop claim. | Privett posits that Sanchez’s beliefs and Staubus’s BAC estimates show knowledge. | Constructive knowledge is insufficient; only actual knowledge supports liability. | Constructive knowledge cannot satisfy the statute; not enough to defeat summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gressman v. McClain, 40 Ohio St.3d 359 (1988) (actual knowledge required under Dram Shop Act)
- Caplinger v. Korrzan Restaurant Mgt., Inc., 2011-Ohio-6020 (2011) (constructive knowledge not enough under the Act)
- Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383 (1996) (summary judgment standard and material facts)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (basic summary judgment principles in civil cases)