Providing liquor to person under 21 or to intoxicated person
- allowing consumption by minor on property
- mandatory minimum penalties
Source:
Section 471.410 — Providing liquor to person under 21 or to intoxicated person; allowing consumption by minor on property; mandatory minimum penalties, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors471.html.
Notes of Decisions
This section is intended to protect minors from the evils of alcohol and was not (when applied with ORS 471.620) intended to protect the public from injuries caused by intoxicated minors. Wiener v. Gamma Phi Chapter, ATO Frat., 258 Or 632, 485 P2d 18 (1971)
A license granted under this chapter may be suspended for selling liquor to a minor only if this sale was made with knowledge of the minor’s age, or with reasonable ground to believe the purchaser was a minor. Plaid Pantries, Inc. v. Ore. Liquor Control Comm., 16 Or App 199, 517 P2d 1192 (1974)
Tavern keeper is negligent if, at time of serving drinks to customer, that customer is visibly intoxicated, because at that time it is reasonably foreseeable that when customer leaves tavern he or she will drive an automobile. Campbell v. Carpenter, 279 Or 237, 566 P2d 893 (1977)
As Liquor Control Act, of which this section is part, was intended to regulate commercial sales of liquor and not its furnishing in social settings, civil liability cannot be predicated upon violation of this section. Johnson v. Paige, 47 Or App 1177, 615 P2d 1185 (1980)
Where defendant furnishes alcohol to two minors in one incident he can be charged with and found guilty of two violations. State v. Ritner, 66 Or App 735, 675 P2d 1085 (1984)
Minimum mandatory penalty provisions of this section do nothing more than establish minimum level of punishment which court is free to exceed within confines of punishment authorized for Class A misdemeanor. State v. Ritner, 66 Or App 735, 675 P2d 1085 (1984)
Where “dram shop” case was pleaded as common law negligence claim, jury instruction in language of this section was erroneous, because it did not inform jury that plaintiff had to prove defendant could reasonably have foreseen that customer, on leaving tavern, would drive car. Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, 298 Or 689, 696 P2d 513 (1985)
Subsection prohibiting making liquor available to visibly intoxicated person is not appropriate standard for establishing negligence per se. Hawkins v. Conklin, 307 Or 262, 767 P2d 66 (1988); Fulmer v. Timber Inn Restaurant and Lounge, Inc., 330 Or 413, 9 P3d 710 (2000)
Violation of this section by directly furnishing liquor to minor does not require culpable mental state. State v. McCathern, 211 Or App 171, 154 P3d 130 (2007), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant, who lived in house where party attended by minors occurred and who did not stop minors from drinking alcohol at party, did not make available alcohol to minors at party because defendant did not control supply of alcohol to which defendant could authorize access by minors. State v. James, 266 Or App 660, 338 P3d 782 (2014)
Local ordinance creating crime for allowing social gathering of juveniles consuming alcohol to take place on person’s property without proof of mental state is preempted by provision of Liquor Control Act that prohibits allowing juveniles to consume alcohol on private property only when person who controls property knowingly allows it to happen. City of Corvallis v. Pi Kappa Phi, 293 Or App 319, 428 P3d 905 (2018)
Law Review Citations
7 WLJ 472, 481-497 (1971); 22 WLR 175 (1986); 23 WLR 93, 99 (1987); 77 OLR 497 (1998)
Up to date