Rush, C.J.
A “dram shop” is a bar, tavern, or store that sells alcohol. This antiquated term comes from the historical practice of selling alcohol by the dram—an eighteenth-century British unit measuring three fourths of a teaspoon. Though “dram shop” may be an unfamiliar term to many today, it survives in the legal field. For over a century, Indiana’s dram shops have faced criminal liability for various conduct. And for nearly sixty years, they have faced civil liability under principles of common-law negligence for providing alcohol to intoxicated individuals who later cause injury. But in 1986, the Legislature passed the Dram Shop Act, which limited civil liability to those with actual knowledge of the injury-causing person’s visible intoxication. This case presents an issue of first impression: the Dram Shop Act’s impact on common-law liability against entities that serve alcohol.
Here, an intoxicated driver crashed his car into another vehicle, killing its driver. The deceased’s estate sued two restaurants that had served the intoxicated driver and included a negligence claim. The restaurants moved to dismiss only that claim, arguing that the Dram Shop Act eliminated any independent common-law liability, and thus the claim failed as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion.
We affirm. The Dram Shop Act modified but did not eliminate common-law liability against entities that furnish alcohol. And at this early stage of the proceedings, we hold that the estate’s negligence claim satisfies the Dram Shop Act’s requirements and alleges facts capable of supporting relief.
….
The Restaurants argue that the Estate’s negligence claim in Count III must be dismissed because the Dram Shop Act eliminated common-law liability against businesses that furnish alcoholic beverages to someone who later causes injury. Alternatively, the Restaurants contend that Count III must be dismissed because Indiana law does not recognize the “duties” alleged by the Estate. We reject both arguments at this stage.
A historical review of dram-shop regulation in Indiana is instructive to determine the Dram Shop Act’s impact on common-law liability against entities that provide alcohol. And we conclude the statute modified, but did not eliminate, common-law liability. In reaching this conclusion, we review the Dram Shop Act and find it did not abrogate the common law in either express terms or by unmistakable implication. Rather, the statute provides additional requirements—actual knowledge of visible intoxication and specific proximate causation—to establish liability in any civil action. We then hold that the Estate’s negligence claim in Count III satisfies these requirements and alleges facts capable of supporting relief. As a result, the trial court properly denied the Restaurants’ motion to dismiss.
I. The history of Indiana’s dram-shop regulation guides our determination of the Dram Shop Act’s effect on common-law liability.
….
II. The Dram Shop Act modified but did not eliminate common-law liability for furnishing alcohol to an intoxicated person who later causes injury.
We first conclude the Dram Shop Act did not eliminate common-law liability against entities that furnish alcohol. In reaching this conclusion, we review the statute’s text and find nothing in either its express terms or by unmistakable implication that reveals it was intended to preempt the common law. But we then recognize and explain how the Dram Shop Act modified the common law by imposing additional requirements to establish liability.
A. The Dram Shop Act neither explicitly nor implicitly abrogated common-law liability.
….
In sum, the Dram Shop Act does not expressly or by unmistakable implication eliminate common-law liability against entities that furnish alcohol. And thus, a plaintiff is not precluded from bringing a negligence claim premised on a business’s common-law duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care when providing alcoholic beverages. But the Dram Shop Act impacted these claims by limiting the scope of liability.
B. The Dram Shop Act added requirements to common law claims seeking damages against those who furnish alcohol.
….
The Dram Shop Act modified these common-law claims by imposing two requirements that limit the scope of liability. First, the person furnishing alcoholic beverages must have “actual knowledge” that the individual “was visibly intoxicated.” I.C. § 7.1-5-10-15.5(b)(1). And second, that individual’s intoxication must be “a proximate cause of the death, injury, or damage.” Id. § -15.5(b)(2).
Thus, common-law claims against entities that furnish alcohol must satisfy the Dram Shop Act’s requirements: actual knowledge of visible intoxication and specific proximate causation. We now turn to the Estate’s negligence claim in Count III and assess its legal sufficiency.
III. The Estate alleged facts capable of supporting relief in Count III.
….
Beyond the Dram Shop Act’s requirements, the parties dispute the Estate’s allegations that the Restaurants were negligent by failing “to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances” in serving alcohol to Adair, allowing him to drive away in an intoxicated state, failing to notify law enforcement about his conduct, and failing to provide him with alternative transportation. Ultimately, the interplay between Counts II and III in this case supports denying the Restaurants’ motion to dismiss. As both sides acknowledged at oral argument, dismissing the allegations in Count III at this stage makes no difference because the Restaurants are not liable in either Count II or Count III without actual knowledge of Adair’s visible intoxication that was the proximate cause of Blount’s death. So, if the Estate prevails on Count II, Count III adds nothing to the Estate’s recovery; and if it does not prevail on Count II, it cannot win on Count III either.
We also acknowledge the Restaurants’ argument that Count II and Count III improperly seek “multiple recoveries for a single wrong.” Though they are correct that the Estate cannot recover twice for the same wrong, the factual allegations in Count III will not necessarily lead to double recovery. For example, some may be relevant to comparative fault. And our rules explicitly permit the Estate to plead alternate theories for recovery. T.R. 8(E)(2). Further, the Restaurants do not argue that leaving Count III in the complaint at this juncture impacts the scope of discovery—their only practical concern is that permitting duplicative claims may confuse the jury. If Count III does not support an alternative claim, or if there is some risk of double recovery, those concerns can be addressed at a later stage.
In short, Count III puts the Restaurants on notice of a factual scenario in which a legally actionable injury has occurred: an act (or acts) of common law negligence that include the Dram Shop Act’s requirements. Thus, the trial court properly denied the Restaurants’ motion to dismiss.
Conclusion
The Dram Shop Act modified but did not eliminate common-law liability for entities that furnish alcohol. And the Estate’s negligence claim in Count III satisfies the Dram Shop Act’s requirements and includes operative facts capable of supporting relief. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the Restaurants’ motion to dismiss. [Footnote omitted.]
Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ. concur.