it’s illegal in the state of California to serve alcoholic beverages to a minor or an intoxicated person. It’s a violation punishable by revocation of the business permit, fines or even jail time.

Abstract... let me expand on that thought. I will try to do it in less than 500,000 words. :) In law there is a terminology called due diligence. It can be applied in both criminal and civil matters. Criminally for someone to be guilty of a crime the test is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Civil law however says that to be found guilty, i.e. liable you need only show 51% responsibility, hence a preponderance of the evidence. In this scenario should a bartender refuse to serve a patron based upon the belief that the patron is intoxicated to the point that may be a harm to themselves or others and can show that they (the bartender and establishment) showed due diligence in "not serving the person" then the establishment and bartender can not be held liable criminally (in the event the person goes to his truck gets a gun and opens fire on the other patrons) or civilly (the person leaves and smashes head on into a family and kills them all). Many states have tried to enact this type of law (better referred to as "dram shop") to reduce the incident rate of drunk driving crimes. In essence,. they are saying that the bartender and establishment have a moral and ethical responsibility to the unsuspecting public. What is crucial is that the establishment and bartender sets a precedence by keeping track of such incidents. Generally, should a patron be involved in an incident you will probably not know about it until a law suit lands on your steps 6 months after the fact. keep camera footage, names of people you refuse service by asking them their name if they refuse to show ID (most do when they have drank too much), physical description, what happened etc... I know it sounds like alot but we have become a world known as the "blame" game society. Where the individual should take responsibility for their actions the world now wants to blame someone else. In closing, remember that should a patron (God forbid) hit someone while intoxicated and loss of life of the victim occurs; the patron ends up being charged and found guilty for a criminal offense (manslaughter 1-2); it only strengthens the case against your establishment; although the lack of criminal charges do not dismiss a civil action. In essence... document, document, and document

It depends on the "something bad." If you are asking whether or not a business can be civilly liable because an intoxicated person was harmed because of being drunk (e.g. drinking and driving), NO. On the other hand, if the person is harmed because the bar owner failed to maintain the premises (e.g., a person stumbles on a crack on the bar property), then the bar could be liable. Note that in this case, it does not matter that a non-intoxicated person would not have stumbled.