Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.17-1

Revised May 10, 2013

The plaintiff <name> alleges that the defendant <name> violated a statute known as the Dram

Shop Act, which reads, in relevant part that:

"If any person, by such person or such person's agent, sells any alcoholic liquor to an intoxicated

person, and such purchaser, in consequence of such intoxication, thereafter injures the person or

property of another, such seller shall pay just damages to the person injured . . . provided the

aggrieved person or persons shall give written notice to such seller of such person's or persons'

intention to bring an action under this section.

1 Such notice shall be given (1) within one

hundred twenty days of the occurrence of such injury to person or property, or (2) in case of the

death or incapacity of any aggrieved person, within one hundred eighty days of the occurrence of

such injury to person or property. Such notice shall specify the time, the date and the person to

whom such sale was made, the name and address of the person injured or whose property was

damaged, and the time, date and place where the injury to person or property occurred. . . ."

To establish that the defendant <name> violated the statute, the plaintiff <name> must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that:

1. On <insert date>, the defendant <name>, through (his/her/its) agent or

agents, sold alcoholic liquor to <name of customer>;

2. <Name of customer> was intoxicated at the time of the sale; and

3. In consequence of that intoxication, <name of customer> injured the

plaintiff <name> or the plaintiff's <name> property.

The defendant <name> disputes that <name of customer> was intoxicated when (he/she/it) sold

the liquor to (him/her). In order to impose liability under this act, the plaintiff <name> must

prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that <name of customer> was intoxicated when the

defendant <name> sold the liquor to (him/her). The plaintiff <name> cannot prevail on (his/her)

claim unless you find that <name of customer> was visibly or otherwise perceivably intoxicated

when the defendant <name> sold (him/her) liquor. The plaintiff <name> need prove only that

the signs of <name of customer>'s intoxication could have been observed, not that they would

have been obvious to anyone coming into contact with (him/her). This means that although a

person is not 'obviously intoxicated' the fact that (he/she) is 'intoxicated' would be discoverable

by reasonably active observation of (his/her) appearance, breath, speech, and action. This may

require the supplier of liquor to engage the prospective purchaser in conversation, to note

specifically the details of the purchaser's physical appearance, to observe the purchaser's conduct

during the course of (his/her) drinking at the supplier's establishment, or to scrutinize the action

of the prospective customer in other ways by which the supplier may detect intoxication which is

observable even though not obvious. Any perceptible indicator of intoxication at the time of

service, including excessive alcohol consumption itself, can be sufficient to permit recovery.

To be intoxicated is something more than to be merely under the influence of, or affected to

some extent by, liquor. Intoxication means an abnormal mental or physical condition due to the

influence of intoxicating liquors, a visible excitation of the passions and impairment of the

judgment, or a derangement or impairment of physical functions and energies. When it is

apparent that a person is under the influence of liquor, when (his/her) manner is unusual or

abnormal and is reflected in (his/her) walk or conversation, when (his/her) ordinary judgment or

common sense are disturbed or (his/her) usual willpower temporarily suspended, when these or

similar symptoms result from the use of liquor and are manifest, a person may be found to be

intoxicated. (He/She) need not be 'dead-drunk.' It is enough if by the use of intoxicating liquor

(he/she) is so affected in (his/her) acts or conduct that the public or parties coming in contact

with (him/her) can readily see and know this is so.

Finally, the plaintiff <name> must also prove by a preponderance of the evidence that <name of

customer>'s intoxication proximately caused the injury. I remind you that the plaintiff <name>

does not have to prove that the liquor sold to <name of customer> by the defendant <name>

produced or contributed to <name of customer>'s intoxication.

<Insert Proximate Cause, Instruction 3.1-1.>

1 If notice is an issue, then you must read the notice portion of the statute.