In another case , Gentry v . Day , 22 N . E . 3d 710 ( Ind . Ct . App . 2014 ), an eighteen-year-old hosted a party at his father ’ s home while the rest of his family was away . The host contributed money toward alcohol which was purchased by another friend and kept in the trunk of the friend ’ s car during the party . A different friend arrived , the host permitted him to drink the alcohol , and the friend later caused a car crash which killed another partygoer . The trial court granted summary judgment to the eighteen-year-old party host . On appeal , the Court of Appeals observed that , while the host did not personally purchase the alcohol , he : ( 1 ) contributed money , ( 2 ) allowed the partygoer who caused the crash onto the premises , and ( 3 ) gave the partygoer permission to drink the alcohol . The Court thus decided there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the host “ furnished ” alcohol to the partygoer and the Court reversed the trial court ’ s entry of summary judgment .
However , there are limits to the reach of the Dram Shop Act . In Rogers v . Martin , 63 N . E . 3d 316 ( Ind . 2016 ), two co-hosts of a social gathering jointly purchased and owned alcohol , which one of the cohosts consumed during a house party before getting into a fistfight which ultimately resulted in the death of a party guest . The deceased guest ’ s estate sued one of the co-hosts in part under the Dram Shop Act , arguing that the co-host was negligent because she “ furnished ” alcohol to the other co-host who killed the party guest . The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the co-host on the Dram Shop claim because the co-host did not “ furnish ” alcohol to the other co-host . On transfer , the Indiana Supreme Court observed that the term “ furnish ” in the context of the Dram Shop Act requires transfer of possession of the alcohol . Because both co-hosts owned the alcohol jointly , neither could transfer possession to the other , therefore neither could have “ furnished ” alcohol to the other . Thus , the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court ’ s grant
of summary judgment in favor of the co-host on the Dram Shop claim .
Finally , in Lather v . Berg , 519 N . E . 2d 755 ( Ind . Ct . App . 1988 ), a friend provided money for two other friends to buy alcohol . The two friends acquired the alcohol together , and one of the friends became intoxicated and killed a police officer in a car crash . The officer ’ s estate sued , and the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the friend who had provided money for the purchase of alcohol . The Court of Appeals concluded that a person who loans money to another cannot be considered to have furnished alcohol , even if the loaner knows the other person will use that money to buy alcohol in violation of the law . Thus , the Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the friend who provided money .
In the end , liability under Indiana ’ s Dram Shop Act can be very fact-based . Ultimately , it is essential to exercise care and good judgment when engaging in any activity which could be construed as “ furnishing ” alcohol to another . If you find yourself in a situation where your actions vis-à-vis the provision of alcohol are being questioned , we recommend you contact an attorney .
RBELAW . com
13