Warr v. JMGM Group: Maryland Dram Shops Escape Duty to Foreseeable Victims of Drunk Driving

Katherine O'Konski

In Warr v. JMGM Group, the Court of Appeals of Maryland considered whether it should recognize “dram shop liability” by holding a tavern liable for harm to an innocent third party caused by an intoxicated patron. The court held that, absent a special relationship, it would not recognize dram shop liability and concluded that a tavern does not have a duty to prevent harm caused by an intoxicated patron. The majority’s focus on the tavern’s omission in failing to prevent an intoxicated patron from driving led it to erroneously conclude that recognizing dram shop liability would impose a duty to protect the general public in violation of Maryland precedent and the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 315. The court should have recognized that the tavern’s affirmative action in serving a visibly intoxicated patron was relevant to assigning liability. Conceptualizing the tavern’s conduct as an action is consistent with Maryland’s and other states’ case law, and would have enabled the court to find that the Dogfish Head tavern owed a duty to the Warrs under both the general principles of negligence and the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 315. While this case presents a difficult challenge in balancing the interests of Maryland’s tavern businesses with the imperative to reduce drunk driving fatalities, the court should have considered that imposing dram shop liability would deter such destructive behavior while providing compensation for those injured.