Private clubs—whether city clubs, yacht clubs, or fraternal orders—often operate under a dangerous misconception: they believe they are immune from Dram Shop liability because they are “private” organizations rather than commercial bars.
In litigation, defense counsel frequently leverages the “Social Host” defense, arguing that the club is merely a gathering of friends and not a vendor of alcohol. However, a deep forensic analysis of venue operations often reveals that these clubs function exactly like commercial entities, stripping them of social host protections.
Here is how we analyze the “Social Host” defense in private club injury cases.
1. The “Dues as Payment” Exchange
The “Social Host” defense relies on the idea that alcohol is being gifted or shared, not sold. However, in many private city clubs, alcohol costs are buried in:
-
Monthly membership dues.
-
“Minimum spend” requirements for food and beverage.
-
Event fees that include “open bar” access.
When money changes hands—even indirectly via a membership contract—the transaction often shifts from social hospitality to commercial sale, re-triggering the Duty of Care standards applicable to bars and restaurants.
2. The “Honor Bar” Liability Trap
Many classic private clubs utilize “Honor Bars” or locker systems where members pour their own drinks and log them on a clipboard. Clubs argue this is self-service, not service by an employee.
From an expert witness perspective, this is often a failure of supervision. If a club provides the alcohol, the glassware, the venue, and the cleanup staff, they retain a duty to monitor consumption. An unmonitored honor bar in a facility with known driving risks (like a golf or yacht club) can be framed as systemic negligence—a deliberate choice to remove safety barriers for profit or convenience.
3. Professional Staffing Negates “Social” Context
A true social host (like a homeowner) does not employ a trained bartender. Private clubs do. When a club employs staff who are TIPS or ServSafe certified, they are acknowledging a professional standard of care.
If a bartender continues to serve an intoxicated “VIP member” because they fear for their job, the club is not acting as a social host; they are acting as a negligent employer placing profits (or member retention) over public safety.
Case Takeaway: Don’t let the “Private” label stop discovery. By auditing the club’s financial structure, staffing protocols, and alcohol procurement methods, we can often demonstrate that the club was acting as a commercial vendor, making them liable for the damages caused by an intoxicated member.