Reed v. Breton

We granted leave in these cases to address two questions. The first is what is the proper standard to rebut the statutory presumption in a dram-shop case? MCL 436.1801(8) et seq. The second is what limitations did the Legislature intend, if any, on the type of evidence needed to show that a person was visibly intoxicated when served intoxicants by a dram-shop? The majority holds that, to rebut the statutory presumption, a plaintiff must present clear and convincing evidence. It also holds that, to establish “visible intoxication” under the statute, a plaintiff must present actually manifested…