Published November 4, 2026 ยท By Terry W. Posey, Esq.

Every fall and every spring, the same story plays out somewhere in Ohio. A dance or a game ends, a group of teenagers heads to someone's house, and alcohol appears. By the end of the night a young person is badly hurt. When the family later asks whether the adults who supplied the drinks are responsible, they often hear the same answer from insurance companies: "Your child chose to drink. That's on them."

On October 20, 2026, an Ohio appeals court rejected that answer for minors. In Ohlin v. Machol, 2026-Ohio-4118, the Tenth District Court of Appeals held that when a social host furnishes alcohol to a minor, the minor's voluntary drinking does not excuse the host from liability for the minor's own injuries.

What Happened

Because the case was thrown out at the very start, the court of appeals had to treat the allegations in the complaint as true. Those allegations are that in October 2021, a 17-year-old girl went to a house in Franklin County after her high school homecoming dance. The homeowner and others at the party gave her alcohol. Although she became intoxicated, she was handed the keys to a car. She drove away, crashed into a guardrail, and suffered permanent injuries.

She sued the homeowner and the homeowner's daughter, who she said supplied the alcohol. She also sued a store and its owner, alleging that they sold alcohol to people under 21 that ended up at the party. The trial court dismissed all of those claims before any evidence was taken. It reasoned that she had voluntarily become intoxicated and therefore assumed the risk, and that the law should treat a 17-year-old guest the same as an 18-year-old one.

What the Court of Appeals Decided

1. The adults who served her can be held responsible

Ohio's underage drinking statute, R.C. 4301.69, says that no person shall sell, buy, or furnish beer or liquor to an underage person, with narrow exceptions (for example, when a parent or legal guardian is supervising). The court explained that a violation of this statute is "negligence per se," meaning the law itself sets the duty, and breaking the law proves the duty was breached. The injured person still has to prove the violation caused the injury.

The hosts argued that the statute only protects innocent third parties, such as another driver hit by an intoxicated teenager. The court disagreed. Relying on Ohio Supreme Court precedent, it pointed out that this duty exists to protect the person drinking from his or her own conduct, as well as the public. It also refused to treat underage drinking like a sport or recreational activity whose risks a participant automatically accepts. Underage drinking, the court noted, is not encouraged; it is illegal.

The court's holding was direct:

"[A] minor's voluntary consumption of alcohol furnished by a social host does not absolve the host from liability for injury sustained by that minor proximately caused by the host's breach of duty."

As the court put it, letting the hosts off because the minor chose to drink would wrongly treat the minor as more responsible than the adults who supplied the alcohol.

2. The store: one door closed, another left open

Ohio's Dram Shop Act, R.C. 4399.18, allows a claim against a liquor permit holder for off-premises injuries only in limited situations, such as a knowing sale to a noticeably intoxicated person or a sale that violates R.C. 4301.69, where that person's intoxication then causes injury. Following an earlier Ohio Supreme Court decision, the court held that this statute contemplates two different people: the drunk person who causes harm and the person who is harmed. Because the injured teen was herself the intoxicated person, she had no claim under the Dram Shop Act.

But the court did not stop there. It held that the Dram Shop Act's limits apply to injuries caused by an intoxicated patron, and this case was not that. Her separate claim that the store violated R.C. 4301.69 by selling alcohol to a minor, and that this sale caused her injuries, was enough to survive dismissal. Whether she can prove that the store's sales actually led to her crash is a question for later in the case.

Where This Leaves Different Injured People

Here is how the claims discussed in the opinion line up. The age line matters: Ohio treats people under 18 very differently from those who are 18 to 20.

Who was hurt Who supplied the alcohol What the opinion says
A minor (under 18) who drank Social host (a homeowner or party giver) Claim may proceed; the minor's voluntary drinking is not a defense to the host's duty
A minor (under 18) who drank Store or bar that sold to a minor No Dram Shop Act claim, but a separate claim based on the illegal sale may proceed
An 18 to 20 year old who drank Bar or store No claim for self-inflicted injuries, under an earlier Ohio Supreme Court ruling
An 18 to 20 year old who drank Social host Other Ohio appeals courts have barred these claims
Someone else, hurt by an intoxicated minor (for example, another driver) Social host who served the minor The Ohio Supreme Court has held the host may be civilly liable

What This Means for Injured Teens and Their Families

"She chose to drink" is not the end of the conversation. If your child was under 18 and an adult or a household provided the alcohol, the host may owe a legal duty that runs to your child, not just to strangers on the road.

The source of the alcohol matters. Families should try to learn where the alcohol came from: who bought it, who poured it, and whether a store sold it to someone underage. Receipts, text messages, social media posts, and witness names from the night of the party can disappear quickly.

Car keys matter too. In this case, the teen was handed the keys to someone's car while intoxicated. Who owned that car, and who gave her the keys, can raise other questions of responsibility and insurance coverage. Our post on teen drivers and parental liability in Ohio covers related issues.

The case is not over. This was a ruling on whether the lawsuit could go forward, not a verdict. The injured teen still has to prove what happened and that the defendants' conduct caused her injuries, and the defendants can raise other defenses. They could also ask the Ohio Supreme Court to review the decision.

Where you live in Ohio matters. The Tenth District covers Franklin County (Columbus). Its decisions bind courts there. Courts in the Dayton area, which sit in the Second District, are not bound by Ohlin, but they may find its reasoning persuasive, especially because it rests on Ohio Supreme Court decisions about the duty not to furnish alcohol to minors.

If a drunk teenager hurt someone else, the injured person may have claims against both the driver and the people who supplied the alcohol. For claims against bars and stores, see our post on dram shop claims against bars under R.C. 4399.18.

Talk to Someone Who Handles These Cases

Cases involving underage drinking are emotional and complicated. Families are often dealing with a serious injury, embarrassment, and an insurance company that wants to blame the young person for everything. Injury claims also have strict filing deadlines, so do not wait.

At the Law Offices of Terry W. Posey, we have represented injured Ohioans in car crash cases and other personal injury claims for more than 30 years. If your child or someone you love was hurt after being given alcohol, call us for a free, confidential consultation at 937-236-6444. There is no fee unless we win.

This article discusses a court decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and every case depends on its own facts.