Senate Judiciary subcommittee hears testimony on S.184 to create statutory dram‑shop liability

A South Carolina Senate Judiciary subcommittee heard testimony and debate on S.184, a bill that would create statutory dram‑shop liability for licensees who sell, serve or furnish alcohol that contributes to third‑party injury or death.

The bill was the primary item discussed at the meeting. Attorney Kenny Burger, who represents families in dram‑shop cases, and Steven Burrett, regional executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in South Carolina, gave most of the testimony and urged preserving accountability for establishments that over‑serve patrons while also focusing on reducing frivolous suits and improving server training.

Burger described repeated patterns he said appear in dram‑shop cases: “techniques that involve upselling” and a lack of alcohol‑service training. He recounted three cases he has handled in which patrons were over‑served and later caused severe crashes, and said repeat offenders and establishments with prior suits should face stronger accountability. Burger told the committee that in many fatal or maiming crashes he sees blood‑alcohol levels “somewhere between 0.14 and 0.24,” and that those are the crashes that produce the most serious injuries.

Burger proposed several specific drafting changes to S.184 to reduce future litigation technicalities while sustaining its public‑safety purpose. Among his suggestions: replacing the phrase “visibly intoxicated” with broader language such as “signs or symptoms” or simply “signs”; using the word “apparent” in place of “obvious”; replacing “actual damages” with “damages”; making the text read consistently “sold, served, or furnished” (to avoid a defense that a friend purchased drinks for another patron); and changing phrasing so the statute covers a person who “was or would become intoxicated.” He also urged that liability for serving underage persons preserve existing first‑party claims (injury to the underage person) as well as third‑party claims.

Burger described a factual example in which a bar’s million‑dollar aggregate insurance policy left less recovery available to a family because other claims during the same policy period had already consumed coverage. He said he has offered establishments post‑case settlement terms that would include requiring bartenders to obtain TIPS or ServSafe certification and in‑house training; he said he would refrain from further litigation if an establishment agreed in writing to put those measures in place.

Burrett urged the committee to prioritize victims in the policy discussion. He told members that MADD supports measures that protect public safety and that the effect on victims should be “consistently being asked for everything being discussed.” He said South Carolina’s drunk‑driving fatality problem demands attention and asked lawmakers to weigh any proposal against its effect on people harmed by impaired drivers.

Senators debated the proper standard for liability when the patron is underage. Several senators asked whether subsection C — which would create liability for sales to minors — should require proof of intoxication or operate as strict liability. Senator Massey voiced concern about imposing civil liability when an underage patron was not shown to be intoxicated at the time of service and said he was uncomfortable removing any intoxication requirement entirely. Other senators, and some witnesses, said selling alcohol to a minor is already treated as negligence per se under existing South Carolina case law and that a stricter standard for minors is defensible as a public‑safety policy.

Committee members also discussed administrative and criminal enforcement as complementary deterrents — license suspensions or revocations and stronger DUI enforcement — rather than relying only on civil liability. Multiple senators said they want to pursue related legislative work on DUI enforcement and other tort reforms in parallel with the dram‑shop drafting.

Chair members said S.244 will become part of the committee’s work but staff has not yet had time to prepare materials on that bill. The subcommittee did not hold any formal votes on S.184 during this meeting; members scheduled additional subcommittee sessions to take more testimony and to begin working draft amendments in the coming weeks.

The meeting concluded with a routine motion to adjourn that was seconded and approved by voice vote.