Georgia Store Liable for Fatal Crash After Beer Sale

The Georgia Supreme Court has found a convenience store can be held liable for a fatal highway accident that took place after a driver purchased a 12-pack of beer.

Overturning a lower court, the state’s top court ruled 6-1 on July 5 that Exprezit! Stores 98-Georgia can be held liable for selling beer to a man who was noticeably intoxicated when he made the purchase. About four hours later, Billy Joe Grundell’s vehicle was in a collision with a van in which he and five other people were killed.

The families of those injured sued the convenience store under the dram shop act, but the trial court and Georgia Court of Appeals awarded summary judgment to the store on grounds the beer was not sold for consumption on premises.

The Supreme Court firmly disagreed, ruling that the dram shop act applies when a convenience store sells closed or packaged containers of alcohol not intended for consumption on the premises to a noticeably intoxicated adult.

“This is not to say that the dram shop act cannot be applied to sales made by convenience stores as a matter of law. Each case must rise or fall on its own facts,” the high court added.

According to court documents, Grundell was noticeably intoxicated when he purchased a 12-pack of beer.

The dram shop act says that a person who sells, furnishes or serves alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person of lawful drinking age shall not be liable for injury, death or damage that person causes because of their intoxication. However, the law also says, a person who knowingly sells alcoholic beverages to a noticeably intoxicated person, knowing that such person will soon be driving, may become liable.

The high court said that because the statute uses the terms “sells, furnishes or serves” alcohol in the disjunctive, it is clear that it was intended to encompass the sale of an alcoholic beverage at places other than the proverbial dram shop.

Exprezit! had argued that, like airlines, convenience stores have no way of knowing if their customers will soon be driving a motor vehicle. The store also contended that unlike taverns, bars and restaurants, where customers drink on the premises, convenience stores are limited in their ability to discern whether their customers are noticeably intoxicated.

But the high court did not buy that argument, finding that a convenience store will often have an opportunity to observe how the customer arrived and will depart and thus may know if a customer will soon be driving a motor vehicle. Also, the court said, the convenience store seller has an opportunity to observe if the customer appears to be noticeably intoxicated.

Topics Georgia