Sample Dram Shop – Personal Injury Complaint

{LAW FIRM NAME}
{Address}
{City}, {State} {ZIP}
{Telephone:}
{Facsimile: }

{Lawyer Name (Bar No.)}
Email: {}

Attorney for Plaintiff

In the Superior Court of the state of Arizona
In and for the County of Maricopa

Plaintiffs, by and through counsel undersigned, and for [his/her] Complaint against Defendants, alleges as follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiffs __________ are and were residents of Maricopa County, Arizona at all relevant times.
2. Defendants __________ and [John/Jane] Doe __________ are now and were residents of Maricopa County, Arizona, and married to each other as husband and wife. All acts, errors and/or omissions complained of and material were for and on behalf of the marital community. [Defendant __________ is a single [man/woman] and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.]
3. Defendant [parent name of bar establishment] is an Arizona limited liability company [or list other type of entity] that owns, operates and does business as “[name of bar establishment]” located at _____________________, _________, Arizona, and offers for retail sale to the public and patrons intoxicating liquors of various kinds.
4. Defendant [bar establishment] was, at all relevant times, the possessor of a Bar License, issued by the Arizona Department of Liquor, license number ____________.
5. At all material times, Defendant [bar establishment] includes and included any and all parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, franchises, partners, joint ventures, and organization units of any kind, predecessors, successors and assigns and their officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives and any and all other persons acting on their behalf.
6. At all material times, each of the Defendants were the agent and employee of every other Defendant in doing the events described and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment and are vicariously liable under the theory of respondeat superior for the actions and inactions of their employees and contractors.
7. At all materials times, each of the Defendants were either joint tortfeasors with other Defendants, were concurrently or jointly and severally liable and/or otherwise derivatively or vicariously liable for the events described herein, which caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages described in this Complaint.
8. Defendants John Does and Jane Does 1-10, ABC Corporations 1-10, Limited Liability Companies and/or partnerships 1-10 are persons and entities whose true identities are unknown to Plaintiff, who together with named Defendants contributed to causing the harms, losses and damages described in this Complaint. Plaintiff will amend [his/her] Complaint when the true names of those Defendants become known.
9. Jurisdiction and venue are proper as the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ Complaint occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona and the amount in controversy exceeds the minimal jurisdictional requirements of this Court.
10. The amount of Plaintiff’s damages qualifies this matter as a Tier [1, 2 or 3] case in accordance with Rule 8(b)(2) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all prior allegations contained in this Complaint.
12. On or about _____________, at approximately _____, Defendant [bar establishment], located at _________________, by and through its employees, negligently served an excessive number of intoxicating beverages, over the course of ____ hours, to Defendant [individual].
13. Defendant [bar establishment], by and through its employees, knew or should have known that Defendant [individual] was intoxicated and presented an unreasonable danger to the public yet continued to serve Defendant [individual] while he was already visibly intoxicated.
14. After leaving Defendant [bar establishment], Defendant [individual], entered into [his/her] vehicle and was traveling on _________________________, in __________, Arizona, when Defendant negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to control the location and speed of [his/her] vehicle, causing it to violently strike Decedent’s vehicle resulting in [his/her] serious personal injuries. [failed to yield when making a left-hand turn at an intersection/failed to use a proper turn signal before turning from a roadway into a private drive or roadway/failed to yield when making a turn from a private roadway or driveway onto a highway/failed to yield when making a turn from a private business or residential driveway onto a roadway/failed to stop at a red light/failed to stop at a stop sign.]
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant [individual] was operating [his/her] vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Title 28 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

COUNT ONE – STATUTORY LIQUOR LICENCE LIABILITY

(Against Defendant [Bar Establishment])

16. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all prior allegations contained in this Complaint.
17. At all relevant times, Defendant [bar establishment] owed a duty to comply with all applicable statutes, regulations and rules related to imposing liability on liquor licensees for serving obviously intoxicated patrons.
18. Defendant [bar establishment] breached this duty when it failed to comply with such statutes, regulations and rules regarding imposing liability on liquor licensees for serving obviously intoxicated patrons, as required by A.R.S. § 4-311, et seq.
19. Plaintiff was within the class of persons whom the above-referenced statute was meant to protect.
20. Defendant [bar establishment’s] failure to comply with the above-referenced statute created the type of motor vehicle accident as described above which the law was designed to protect.
21. Defendant’s failure to comply with the above-referenced statutes was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and thus constitutes negligence per se.

COUNT TWO – DRAM SHOP NEGLIGENCE

(Against Defendant [Bar Establishment])

22. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all prior allegations contained in this Complaint.
23. Defendant [bar establishment] sold alcoholic beverages to Defendant [individual] at a time when Defendant, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that Defendant [individual] was intoxicated.
24. Defendant [bar establishment]’s sale of alcoholic beverages to Defendant [individual] under such conditions was negligent and the proximate cause of Defendant [individual]’s intoxication.
25. The negligence of Defendant [bar establishment] was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

COUNT TWO – NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

(Against Defendant [Bar Establishment])

26. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all prior allegations contained in this Complaint.
27. Defendant [bar establishment] owed Decedent a duty to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, retention and supervision of its agents, servants and/or employees.
28. Defendant breached its duty when by failing to exercise due care in the hiring, training, retention and supervision of its bartenders and servers.
29. Defendant knew or should have known of the danger of serving alcohol to intoxicated persons and its need to adequately protect the public from such intoxicated persons by proper hiring, training, retention and supervision of its agents, servants and/or employees.
30. As the proximate and foreseeable consequence of Defendant’s, including its agents, servants and/or employees, negligent acts in failing to prevent the intoxication and negligent and reckless driving of Defendant [individual], Defendant [bar establishment] contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

COUNT THREE – VEHICULAR NEGLIGENCE

(Against Defendant [individual])

31. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all prior allegations contained in this Complaint.
32. At all relevant times, all Defendant owed Decedent a duty of care to drive prudently, safely and within the bounds of the law, including a duty to exercise reasonable care, reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, while driving a motor vehicle on a roadway including controlling the location and speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person or vehicle.
33. Defendant breached [his/her] duty of care when [he/she] was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
34. Defendant breached [his/her] duty of care owed to Plaintiff when Defendant operated [his/her] vehicle in such a negligent manner so as to cause the accident, as described in this Complaint, in which Plaintiff was injured. Said accident and injuries were caused by the negligence of Defendant without any negligence or contribution on the part of the Plaintiff.
35. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff sustained serious injuries and damages.

COUNT FOUR – NEGLIGENCE PER SE

(Against Defendant [individual])

36. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all prior allegations contained in this Complaint.
37. At all relevant times, Defendant owed a duty to comply with applicable statutes, regulations, and rules related to the safe operation of a motor vehicle in the State of Arizona.
38. Defendant’s operation and use of the vehicle [he/she] was operating violated Arizona Statutes for protection of public safety, including, but not limited to, A.R.S. §§ 28-693; 28-701A, 13-1201A, 13-1204A1, 28-1381A1, 28-1381A2, 28-1382A1 and 28-1382A2.
39. Defendant breached this duty when [he/she] drove a vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of persons, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-693.
40. Defendant breached this duty when [he/she] failed to control the speed of [his/her] vehicle, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-701A.
41. Defendant breached this duty when [he/she] drove a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drug, vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1381A1.
42. Defendant breached this duty when [he/she] drove a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1381A2.
43. Defendant breached this duty when [he/she] drove a vehicle drove a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 or more but less than 0.20, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1382A1.
44. Defendant breached this duty when [he/she] drove a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.20 or greater, pursuant to A.R.S. § 28-1382A2.
45. Decedent was, at the time of the collision, within the class of persons whom the above-referenced statutes were meant to protect.
46. Defendant’s failure to comply with the above-referenced statute created the type of collision against which the law was designed to protect.
47. Defendant’s failure to comply with the above-referenced statutes was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages and thus constitutes negligence per se.

COUNT FIVE – PUNITIVE DAMAGES

(Against Defendant [Individual])

48. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all prior allegations contained in this Complaint.
49. Defendant drove [his/her] vehicle when [he/she] was intoxicated or impaired disregarding the safety of others on the road.
50. Defendant’s conduct constitutes aggravated and outrageous conduct in conscious disregard of substantial risk or harm to Plaintiff and others and evidences an evil mind in that [he/she] acted to serve [his/her] own interests and having reason to know and consciously disregarding the substantial risk that [his/her] conduct driving a vehicle while impaired might significantly injure the rights of others, consciously pursued a course of conduct knowing it created a substantial risk of significant harm to other persons.
51. Plaintiff is entitled to a punitive or exemplary damages award in a sum sufficient to punish Defendant and to deter others from driving while under the influence.

COUNT SIX – LOSS OF SPOUSAL CONSORTIUM

(Against All Defendants)

52. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference all prior allegations contained in this Complaint.
53. As a consequence of Plaintiff’s injuries, [his/her] [wife, husband] has suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of society, services, companionship, love and support as a result of the Defendant’s reckless and negligent actions.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

54. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. For Plaintiffs’ general and special damages;
2. For Plaintiffs’ costs incurred in pursuing these claims;
3. For loss of consortium by Plaintiff’s spouse in an amount to be proven at trial;
4. For punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at the time of trial;
5. For pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent provided by law;
6. For such further relief as the Court deems just and fair.

DATED this ____ day of _____________, _____.