The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed a $5,000 fine and liquor license revocation imposed against Tower Hill Tavern, LLC, ruling that the state Liquor Commission lacked sufficient evidence to prove the Laconia establishment overserved an intoxicated patron.
The court issued its decision Sept. 12, 2025, in *Appeal of Tower Hill Tavern, LLC* (2025 N.H. 41), following oral arguments held in May. Chief Justice MacDonald wrote the opinion for the court, which centered on whether Tower Hill violated RSA 179:5, I by serving alcohol to someone "who a reasonable and prudent person would know is intoxicated."
The case stems from an incident on June 10, 2023, when a patron identified as T.A. and her friends arrived at Tower Hill around 11:00 p.m. The group had previously visited two other bars in Laconia that evening and consumed alcoholic beverages before arriving at Tower Hill's upstairs bar.
According to the court record, T.A. and her friends ordered drinks at Tower Hill. At some point during their visit, T.A. made a statement that became central to the commission's enforcement action, though the full details of the incident were not included in the available court documents.
The New Hampshire Liquor Commission subsequently initiated proceedings against Tower Hill, alleging the establishment had violated state law by serving alcohol to an intoxicated person. The commission imposed a $5,000 fine and revoked the tavern's liquor license as penalty for the alleged overservice violation.
Tower Hill challenged the commission's determination, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the establishment had served someone who was visibly intoxicated. The tavern was represented by attorneys William E. Christie and James J. Armillay Jr. from Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. of Concord.
The state defended the commission's action through the Attorney General's office, with Attorney General John M. Formella and Solicitor General Anthony J. Galdieri representing the commission. Assistant Attorney General Mary A. Triick handled the case at both the written brief and oral argument stages.
The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence met the statutory standard under RSA 179:5, I, which prohibits serving alcohol to individuals who are clearly intoxicated. The law requires that a "reasonable and prudent person" would recognize the patron's level of intoxication.
In reversing the commission's decision, Chief Justice MacDonald concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that Tower Hill had violated the statute. The court's analysis focused on whether the establishment's employees should have reasonably known that T.A. was intoxicated based on her observable condition and behavior.
The ruling represents a significant victory for Tower Hill Tavern and establishes important precedent for how New Hampshire courts will evaluate overservice cases. The decision clarifies the evidentiary standard that must be met before the Liquor Commission can impose substantial fines and revoke licenses for alleged overservice violations.
For establishments throughout New Hampshire, the decision provides guidance on the level of evidence required to prove overservice violations. The court's emphasis on the "reasonable and prudent person" standard suggests that commission enforcement actions must be supported by clear evidence of visible intoxication that would be apparent to bar staff.
The case also highlights the significant consequences that licensed establishments face when accused of overservice violations. The $5,000 fine and license revocation imposed by the commission represented potentially business-ending sanctions that could have forced Tower Hill to cease operations.
Liquor license enforcement remains a priority for New Hampshire regulators, who have authority to investigate complaints and impose penalties for violations of state alcohol laws. Establishments that serve alcohol must balance customer service with legal compliance, ensuring they do not serve visibly intoxicated patrons while maintaining their business operations.
The Supreme Court's decision to reverse and remand the case sends it back to the commission for further proceedings consistent with the court's ruling. This likely means the commission must either dismiss the charges against Tower Hill or develop additional evidence that meets the legal standard established by the court.
Tower Hill Tavern can now resume normal operations without the threat of the commission's sanctions, though the establishment remains subject to ongoing regulatory oversight. The ruling does not prevent the commission from pursuing future enforcement actions if violations occur, but it establishes clearer standards for what evidence will be required.
The decision reflects the court's careful balancing of regulatory enforcement with the rights of licensed businesses to operate without excessive government interference. By requiring sufficient evidence before upholding severe sanctions, the court protects establishments from arbitrary enforcement while maintaining the state's ability to regulate alcohol service.
For the broader hospitality industry in New Hampshire, the ruling provides important clarity on overservice liability and may influence how establishments train staff to recognize and respond to intoxicated patrons. The decision emphasizes that enforcement actions must be based on concrete evidence rather than speculation about a patron's condition.