In the leading case on the subject the Supreme Court noted there was no redress allowed under common law against sellers or providers of intoxicating liquors, "either on the theory that the dispensing of the liquor constituted a direct wrong or that it constituted actionable negligence."  In the Supreme Court's view, the proximate cause of any injury was the act of the purchaser in drinking the alcohol and not that of the vendor in selling it. Ling and Prime v. Beta Gamma Chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha, 273 Kan. 828, 47 P.3d 402 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that a number of states enacted dram shop statutes which created such a cause of action and that courts in other jurisdictions had judicially abrogated the common-law doctrine of no liability. In Kansas, the territorial legislature enacted a dram shop act in 1859 and a similar statute remained in effect until 1949. At that time, the legislature repealed the dram shop law and enacted the Kansas Liquor Control Act, K.S.A. 41-101 et seq., which contained no dram shop provision. The court has upheld the prior ruling in the more recent case of  Noone v. Chalet of Wichita -- Per Curiam -- Kansas Court of Appeals 27 Aug 04.

Although the liquor vender or provider may not be held liable if there is a trial regarding the accident there could be a finding that the drunk driver should pay punitive damages for drinking and causing the accident. Although such damages are not awarded in all cases if the facts provide for punitive damages the award can be granted.