Gerlach v. Cove Apartments, LLC, 446 P.3d 624 (2019)

Citation: Gerlach v. Cove Apartments, LLC, 446 P.3d 624 (2019)
Parent Document: Gerlach v. Cove Apartments, LLC, 446 P.3d 624 (2019)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2019-05-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6659245/gerlach-v-cove-apartments-llc/ ↗

Full Text

970 chars

¶26 Gerlach also argues that Dr. Vincenzi's testimony was properly excluded based on Purchase v. Meyer, 108 Wash.2d 220, 737 P.2d 661 (1987), because evidence of how alcohol affected a person's behavior cannot be based on a blood alcohol test alone. But Purchase was a dramshop liability case and is distinguishable. To find an establishment liable for over-serving alcohol under a dramshop theory, a plaintiff must prove that a server furnished intoxicating beverages to an obviously intoxicated person. Purchase, 108 Wash.2d at 225, 737 P.2d 661. In Purchase, the relevant issue was whether or not it was obvious to a server that the person being served was intoxicated. Purchase, 108 Wash.2d at 227, 737 P.2d 661. The court held that evidence of a person's blood alcohol level alone could not support a finding that a person was "obviously intoxicated" because people can exhibit the effects of intoxication differently. Purchase, 108 Wash.2d at 225-27, 737 P.2d 661.

Other Sections in This Document (59)

Full Text