In Ennabe v. Manosa (2014), the California Supreme Court extended §25602.1 civil liability to whom?
Explanation
Ennabe v. Manosa, 58 Cal.4th 697 (2014), held that a social host who charged an entry fee at a party (and thus 'sold' alcohol within the meaning of §25602.1) could be civilly liable when alcohol was furnished to an obviously intoxicated minor who later killed someone in a DUI crash. The decision reinforces that §25602.1's MINOR exception applies broadly when alcohol is sold or served — including at non-licensed parties — to underage drinkers showing visible signs of intoxication.
Law Reference: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §25602.1; Ennabe v. Manosa (2014) 58 Cal.4th 697This topic, taught in full in the California RBS (Responsible Beverage Service) guide. California RBS — Responsible Beverage Service Study Guide (2026) — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 100 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete California RBS (Responsible Beverage Service) guide — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- Under Bus. & Prof. Code §25602, a server who sells alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person faces what level of criminal liability?
- Under California's general 'dram shop' rule in Bus. & Prof. Code §25602(b) and (c), can a server or licensee be held civilly liable to a third party (e.g., a victim of a drunk-driving crash) for serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated adult?
- Under California's doctrine of respondeat superior, when a server makes an unlawful sale under §25602, the licensee/employer can be held:
- ABC may suspend or revoke an alcohol license under §24200 for multiple grounds. Which of the following is a common ground?
- The burden of proof for a criminal §25602 prosecution against a server is:
- If a server is criminally charged with a §25658 sale-to-minor violation but presents proof that they checked a bona fide §25660 ID in good faith, what is the legal effect?
Last reviewed: · editorial process