Sanderson v. Rattlesnake Mountain Brewing Co.
Dram Shop
Case Review · Settled
Case experience: Dram Shop · Liquor Liability · Bar Operations
Home / Expert Witness by State / Washington
Washington · Apparently intoxicated persons
Washington Dram Shop & Liquor Liability Expert Witness
Two disclosed Washington engagements, both retained by defense counsel. Washington liability is built on RCW 66.44.200 and decades of common law interpreting what 'apparently under the influence' requires.
Applicable Law
RCW 66.44.200 and Washington common law
RCW 66.44.200 prohibits the sale of liquor to a person apparently under the influence of liquor, and prohibits a person apparently under the influence from purchasing or consuming liquor on licensed premises.
Washington's civil liability is not a self-contained dram shop statute so much as a body of common law built on that prohibition through decades of Washington Supreme Court decisions. A licensee that continued serving a patron who was apparently under the influence can be liable to a third party injured as a result.
Because the standard is apparently under the influence, the dispute is almost always about observability — what the server could see, from where, at what pace, with what staffing. Washington also operates a mandatory server permit scheme, which produces a documentary record of who was trained and what they were trained to recognise.
Server training
MAST — Mandatory Alcohol Server Training. Servers hold a MAST permit; the training covers identification checks, recognising an apparently intoxicated person, and refusing service. Permits can be revoked for repeated violations.
How counsel plead it
Washington counsel argue service to an apparently intoxicated person. MAST permit is the phrase that appears throughout the training record.
Statutes and regulatory schemes change. The citations above are starting points for counsel, verified at the time of writing against the state code and the regulator named — they are not legal advice, and Ryan does not offer opinions on the law itself.
Evidence
What Ryan Reviews in a Washington Matter
The evidence set follows the legal standard. Where the statute turns on what was observable, the analysis runs on video, service records and staffing; where it turns on security or premises conditions, it runs on deployment, supervision and incident history.
- MAST permits for staff on shift and the training content itself
- POS and tab records correlated to a service timeline
- Surveillance video for observable indicators
- Staffing, sightlines and service pace at the relevant time
- House policy on cut-offs and refusal of service
- WSLCB enforcement and violation history for the licence
Disclosed Washington Experience
2 Disclosed Matters
Two Washington engagements are disclosed, both retained by Clyde & Co US LLP for the defense: Sanderson v. Rattlesnake Mountain Brewing Co. (case review; settled) and Beltran v. Amendment (case review). Both sides of the bar retain Ryan; Washington happens to be defense-side.
Beltran v. Amendment
Dram Shop
Case Review
Case experience: Dram Shop · Liquor Liability · Bar Operations
Questions
Washington — Common Questions from Counsel
What is the standard for liquor liability in Washington?
Service to a person apparently under the influence of liquor, contrary to RCW 66.44.200, with civil liability developed through Washington common law interpreting that prohibition.
What is a MAST permit and why does it matter in litigation?
Mandatory Alcohol Server Training — the Washington server permit scheme administered by the Liquor and Cannabis Board. It produces a record of who was trained, when, and in what, which bears directly on whether staff should have recognised an apparently intoxicated patron.
Does Ryan work for the defense in Washington matters?
Both of the disclosed Washington engagements were defense retentions. Across all disclosed matters, roughly two-thirds are plaintiff and one-third defense; opinions follow the facts and the applicable standard of care rather than the retaining party.
Other Jurisdictions
States With Disclosed Experience
Ryan is available nationwide. These are the jurisdictions his CV documents.
Washington Matter Under Review?
Submit a case inquiry for a confidential conflicts check and evaluation. Ryan responds to all inquiries within one business day.