Automated Summary
Key Facts
Tower Hill Tavern, LLC appealed an order from the New Hampshire Liquor Commission imposing a $5,000 fine and revoking its liquor license for alleged overservice of an intoxicated patron. On June 10, 2023, T.A. consumed approximately four Blueberry Vodkas at Tower Hill before becoming ill and vomiting outside the establishment, where she was transported to the hospital for alcohol poisoning treatment at 12:50 a.m. on June 11, 2023. The commission found Tower Hill violated RSA 179:5, concluding that a reasonable and prudent person would have known T.A. was intoxicated when served five alcoholic beverages in less than an hour. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the commission's order, determining there was insufficient evidence that Tower Hill knew or reasonably should have known at the time of service that T.A. was intoxicated, as the investigator did not interview the bartenders and no evidence was presented regarding what servers knew or what information was available to them at the time of service.
Issues
The principal legal question is whether there was sufficient evidence that Tower Hill Tavern served an individual who a reasonable and prudent person would know is intoxicated, as required by RSA 179:5, I (2022). The court must determine if the evidence established that the licensee knew or reasonably should have known at the time of service that the patron was intoxicated.
Holdings
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed and remanded the New Hampshire Liquor Commission's order imposing a $5,000 fine and revoking Tower Hill Tavern's liquor license. The court found insufficient evidence to establish that the tavern violated RSA 179:5 regarding overservice of an intoxicated patron, as there was no evidence showing what the servers knew or what information was available to them at the time of service to prove a reasonable and prudent person would have known the patron was intoxicated.
Remedies
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the New Hampshire Liquor Commission's order that imposed a $5,000 fine and revoked Tower Hill Tavern's liquor license, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Legal Principles
- The commission bears the burden to prove that a reasonable and prudent person would have known the patron was intoxicated when served. The commission's findings of fact are presumed lawful and reasonable under RSA 541:13, but the commission must still present sufficient evidence. Without evidence of what servers knew or what information was available to them at the time of service, the commission cannot establish a violation of the statute.
- The court established that to prove a violation of RSA 179:5, I, there must be evidence that a reasonable and prudent licensee would have known the patron was intoxicated at the time of service. The objective standard applies specifically at the time of service, not after. The commission failed to meet this burden because they did not interview servers about what they knew at the time of service, and the fact that a patron consumed multiple drinks in an hour, standing alone, is insufficient to prove a violation.
Precedent Name
- St. Onge v. Oberten LLC
- Appeal of Baldoumas Enterprises
- Appeal of Town of Seabrook
- Antosz v. Allain
- Currier v. Newport Lodge No. 1236
- Burns v. Bradley
Cited Statute
- New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated Chapter 541 Section 13
- New Hampshire Liquor Law
Judge Name
- Chief Justice MacDonald
- Justice Countway
- Justice Donovan
Passage Text
- Because a violation of this variant of RSA 179:5, I, depends on this objective standard at the time of service, there must be some evidence of what knowledge the person serving the alcohol had or what information was available to the server at the time of service to prove a violation.
- RSA 179:5, I, provides that '[n]o licensee... shall... serve an individual who is visibly intoxicated or who a reasonable and prudent person would know is intoxicated.'
- Because we determine that the evidence was insufficient to establish a violation of the statute, we reverse and remand.