Washington’s Standard Is “Apparently Under the Influence”

Last reviewed September 2026

Washington has no dram shop statute. What it has is a short prohibition and a regulation restating it as an operating duty, and the phrase they share — apparently under the influence — is the standard a Washington venue is measured by.

RCW 66.44.200 and WAC 314-11-035

There is no Washington dram shop act. RCW 66.44.200 sits in the chapter of prohibited practices and is drafted as a prohibition, not a liability provision.

Washington's statute is a prohibition rather than a liability provision: “No person shall sell any liquor to any person apparently under the influence of liquor.” It is this prohibition, rather than a dram shop act, that Washington's civil claims are built on.

The Liquor and Cannabis Board’s rule then states the same duty in operating terms.

The rule made under that statute states the operating duty: “Per RCW 66.44.200, licensees or employees may not supply liquor to any person apparently under the influence of liquor, or allow an apparently intoxicated person to possess or consume liquor on the licensed premises.”

Standard for liability

“Apparently under the influence” is the operative phrase in both the statute and the rule, and it is an observability standard: the question is what the patron presented, not what a later blood-alcohol measurement established and not what the server subjectively concluded.

The rule adds a second limb the statute does not: a licensee may not “allow an apparently intoxicated person to possess or consume liquor on the licensed premises.” That reaches beyond the act of service to the state of the room, which makes floor supervision — not just bartending — part of the duty.

The statute also keeps the two proceedings apart: an administrative action for selling to a person apparently under the influence and an infraction issued to the patron “are separate actions and the outcome of one shall not determine the outcome of the other.”

Washington’s civil liability is a matter of case law built on this prohibition rather than of statute, and this page does not state the civil standard. Counsel should read the current authorities directly for the duty, its scope and its defenses.

Social hosts

RCW 66.44.200(1) is framed around “no person,” which is broader than the licensed trade, while the regulation is addressed to licensees and their employees.

Washington’s treatment of social hosts is a question of its case law and of other provisions, and this page does not state it. Counsel should research it directly.

Minors

RCW 66.44.200 addresses service to a person apparently under the influence. Washington’s underage provisions sit elsewhere in chapter 66.44, and this page does not set them out.

A Washington matter involving an underage drinker should be built on the provisions actually relied on, identified from the current text rather than assumed from this section.

Training, responsible-vendor, and safe-harbor provisions

Neither the statute nor the rule creates a civil safe harbour. Washington administers mandatory alcohol server training through its Liquor and Cannabis Board as a licensing matter, and that is not a shield.

Training bears on the standard itself. Because the duty is framed around what was apparent, what the venue taught its staff to recognize, and whether staff were positioned and supervised so as to recognize it, is evidence on the element. The regulation’s second limb — not allowing an apparently intoxicated person to possess or consume on the premises — makes the supervision question explicit.

Operational evidence commonly examined in Washington cases

• Video at each point of service and across the room, since the rule reaches allowing possession and consumption as well as the act of service.
• Point-of-sale and tab data by server and terminal, assembling the evening onto one timeline.
• Floor supervision by hour: who was responsible for the state of the room rather than for pouring.
• Refusal and cut-off records, and whether a refusal was overridden.
• Any administrative action against the license for service to an apparently intoxicated person.
• Training records per employee on the schedule, and what the training said about recognizing impairment.
• The product served and its strength where the drink was not a standard measure, since consumption cannot be estimated without calibration.

The expert’s role

Washington’s duty reaches the state of the room, not only the transaction, which puts floor supervision and sightline squarely in issue alongside service records. Preston Rideout has run and supervised high-volume bar floors and built the supervision structures these claims examine. Washington is one of two states in which he holds no alcohol-service certification.

Primary sources

• RCW 66.44.200(1), app.leg.wa.gov
• RCW 66.44.200(3), app.leg.wa.gov
• WAC 314-11-035, apps.leg.wa.gov

Questions counsel ask