Which of the following plaintiffs can bring a §25602.1 civil dram-shop suit in California?
Explanation
§25602.1 creates a narrow private right of action limited to cases where the alcohol was furnished to an obviously intoxicated MINOR. Plaintiffs may include third parties (e.g., the family of someone killed by the drunk minor driver) and, under some readings, the minor themselves. There is no general dram-shop cause of action for victims of adult drunk drivers in California (c, d), and the drunk driver suing the bar for their own consumption (a) is barred.
Law Reference: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §25602.1This 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 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?
- California Civil Code §1431.2 (Proposition 51) governs how non-economic damages are allocated in a multi-defendant case. Under this rule, a defendant licensee held civilly liable in a §25602.1 minor case is responsible for:
- Even though California generally does not impose dram-shop liability for serving obviously intoxicated ADULTS, why should an RBS-certified server still strictly enforce §25602 refusals on adult patrons?
Last reviewed: · editorial process