“Social Host Liability” and “Dram Shop Liability” in Maryland
Published .
Maryland generally does not impose civil liability merely because a social host or licensed alcohol vendor furnished alcohol to an adult who later caused an injury. There is a narrow, important exception involving adults who knowingly and willfully allow underage drinking in circumstances covered by Maryland’s statute. The exception does not create a broad dram shop law.
What the terms mean
“Dram shop liability” usually means a claim against a commercial seller—such as a bar or restaurant—for injuries caused by an intoxicated customer. “Social host liability” refers to a similar claim against a person who provides or allows alcohol at a private gathering. In either setting, a claimant must identify a legally recognized duty and prove causation and damages; the fact that alcohol was served is not enough by itself.
Commercial vendors and adult patrons
The Supreme Court of Maryland has repeatedly declined to recognize a general civil claim against a tavern for off-premises injuries caused by an intoxicated adult patron. In Warr v. JMGM Group, LLC, the Court reaffirmed that Maryland does not recognize dram shop liability absent a special relationship between the vendor and the injured person or the intoxicated actor. The Court reasoned that creation of a broad dram shop cause of action is a matter for the General Assembly. Maryland has not enacted a general dram shop statute.
Social hosts and adult guests
Maryland likewise does not generally hold a private host liable to an injured third party just because the host served alcohol to an adult guest who later caused harm. Wright v. Sue & Charles, Inc. applied the State’s refusal to recognize dram shop liability to social-host claims. The usual relationship between a host and adult guest, without additional facts creating an independent duty, is not enough by itself to impose liability.
The narrow exception for underage drinking
Criminal Law § 10-117 prohibits knowingly furnishing alcohol to a person under 21 for that person’s consumption. It also prohibits an adult from knowingly and willfully allowing an under-21 person to possess or consume alcohol at a residence that the adult owns or leases and occupies. The statute contains limited exceptions, including certain immediate-family consumption in a private residence and religious ceremonies. It separately addresses situations in which the adult knew or reasonably should have known that the underage person would drive after drinking and the driving caused serious physical injury or death.
In Kiriakos v. Phillips, the Supreme Court of Maryland recognized a limited negligence claim based on an adult’s knowing and willful violation of the statute by allowing an underage person to drink on the adult’s property. The Court addressed both injury to the underage drinker and injury to third parties foreseeably harmed by the underage person’s impaired driving. A claimant still must prove the statutory circumstances, a causal connection, and damages; the ruling does not make every host responsible whenever a minor drinks or is later involved in an accident.
Practical limits and separate theories
The underage-drinking rule is not a general licensee-liability rule, and it does not establish a general civil remedy against bars for serving adults. A claim based on a separate duty—such as a duty arising from the defendant’s own conduct or a particular premises relationship—must be analyzed on its own facts. Warr expressly did not decide possible premises-liability issues based on alcohol sales on the vendor’s premises.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
State v. Hatfield, 197 Md. 249, 78 A.2d 754 (1951); Felder v. Butler, 292 Md. 174, 438 A.2d 494 (1981); Wright v. Sue & Charles, Inc., 131 Md. App. 466, 749 A.2d 241 (2000); Warr v. JMGM Group, LLC, 433 Md. 170, 70 A.3d 347 (2013); Kiriakos v. Phillips, 448 Md. 440, 139 A.3d 1006 (2016); Md. Code, Crim. Law § 10-117.