An Alabama strip club's practice of encouraging dancers to have customers buy them drinks could make it liable for the injuries of a dancer who wrecked her car after leaving the club in a “highly intoxicated” state.

Alabama's dram shop act allows only third-party claims against alcohol vendors. But Patsy Hamaker, who was seriously injured while driving home from The Furnace in Birmingham, has filed a negligence suit against the club which argues, in effect, that her intoxication was not voluntary.

The Furnace “negligently, wantonly and/or willfully caused or allowed Ms. Hamaker to leave The Furnace in a highly intoxicated state following her shift where alcoholic drinks were purchased for her by customers of The Furnace,” the complaint says.

The club, Hamaker alleges, “encouraged” its dancers to have customers buy them drinks by giving them a cut of the price of the drink and received “valuable profits” from those sales.

Strip clubs commonly require dancers to take a Breathalyzer before leaving work, but Hamaker attorney G. Alan Smith (Smith & Chapman, Pelham, Ala.) says she was not tested at the end of her shift. “If you're going to pay them to drink, you need to take care of them afterward,” he argues.

Some might argue that Hamaker should take responsibility for her own intoxication. But a Texas case appears to provide strong support for holding The Furnace liable.

In D. Houston, Inc., v. Love, 92 S.W.3d 450 (2002), a stripper who had consumed at least 12 alcoholic drinks with customers struck a guardrail while driving home and suffered serious injuries. Her blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit.

The Texas Supreme Court found the stripper's “decision to consume alcohol over a four-hour period was not entirely voluntary,” citing evidence that the stripper's employer “exercised control over her alcohol consumption.”

Among other things, the Treasures club told waitresses to “take specific steps to increase the number of alcoholic drinks that customers bought for dancers” and “directly pressured its dancers to drink alcohol with customers.”

“[W]hen an employer exercises some control over its independent contractor’s decision to consume alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication, such that alcohol consumption is required, the employer must take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable injury to the independent contractor caused by drunk driving,” the court concluded.

According to Smith, the dancers' cut of beverage sales at The Furnace is 50 percent -– potentially significant evidence that the club “directly pressured” them to drink with customers.

Hamaker also is suing The Furnace for premises liability, alleging it “allowed a dangerous condition to exist by allowing said plaintiff to leave its establishment in such an intoxicated state while under said defendants' supervision and control.”

By Matthew Heller
6/16/08