Utah Court of Appeals
Does Utah recognize first-party dramshop liability for self-inflicted injuries? Miller v. Gastronomy, Inc. Explained
Summary
Robert Miller died in a single-car accident after consuming nine glasses of wine at two Gastronomy restaurants while visibly intoxicated. His parents filed a wrongful death action alleging negligence and negligence per se. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the complaint.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Miller v. Gastronomy, Inc., the Utah Court of Appeals definitively rejected first-party dramshop liability claims in Utah, affirming that intoxicated patrons cannot sue alcohol providers for injuries they cause to themselves.
Background and Facts
Robert Miller consumed nine glasses of wine over approximately two hours at two Gastronomy-owned restaurants while visibly intoxicated. Thirty minutes after leaving the establishments, Miller lost control of his vehicle in Parley’s Canyon and died in a single-car accident. His blood alcohol concentration was .22 grams. Miller’s parents filed a wrongful death action alleging negligence and negligence per se for serving alcohol to an intoxicated patron in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three issues: (1) whether Utah recognizes a common-law first-party cause of action against dramshops for injuries from voluntary intoxication, (2) whether such a claim would be preempted by the Dramshop Act, and (3) whether violating the ABCA constitutes negligence per se.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court held that Utah does not recognize first-party dramshop liability, following the majority position nationwide. The court distinguished prior cases like Rees and Yost, noting they created narrow exceptions involving minors, not a general first-party right. Critically, the court emphasized that proximate causation defeats such claims—the drinking of alcohol, not its furnishing, causes the injury. The court also noted that recognizing first-party liability would be illogical when Utah categorically rejects third-party dramshop claims.
Practice Implications
This decision firmly establishes Utah’s position in the majority of jurisdictions rejecting first-party dramshop liability. Practitioners should note that criminal violations of alcohol service laws constitute only evidence of negligence, not negligence per se. The ruling provides strong precedent for defending alcohol providers against claims by intoxicated patrons who injure themselves, emphasizing personal responsibility for voluntary intoxication.
Case Details
Case Name
Miller v. Gastronomy, Inc.
Citation
2005 UT App 80
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20040233-CA
Date Decided
February 25, 2005
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Utah does not recognize a common-law first-party cause of action against dramshops for injuries sustained by intoxicated patrons who injure themselves.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law
Practice Tip
When defending dramshop liability claims, emphasize that Utah requires the intoxicated person’s consumption—not the provider’s service—as the proximate cause of injuries.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.