Originally posted by pormis
imo, it's too many variables and puts too much of an onus on bartenders.
I think what you are missing is that the bar has to be proven to have done something wrong to be held liable.

My knowledge of this area of law is sparse. However, typically for a victim to recover against a bar under a Dram Shop Act, the victim must prove that the alcohol providers served someone who was either under age or who they knew was intoxicated. The alternative to a Dram Shop Act would be to sue the bar under general negligence. Again, the victim would have to prove, among other things, that the bar acted unreasonably in serving alcohol to the drunk. This means that the victim will have to prove something along the lines of the bar didn’t properly train its staff, the drunk was visibly intoxicated or the bar served the drunk an excessive number of drinks. The bar shouldn’t end up being liable as long as it acts reasonably.

Of course, even the most prudent bar likely may still have to face a frivolous suit. As mentioned, however, the bar can protect itself against this risk by purchasing insurance. Once again, this is simply a cost of doing business that the bar can pass along to its customers.