Any extension of liability for damages arising from intoxication must come from the legislature rather than the courts. Richardson v. Ansco, Inc., 75 Ill.App.3d 731, 732 (1979). The only remedy available to a plaintiff seeking to recover damages resulting from intoxication is an action under the Dramshop Act.

• 1 It is well-established in Illinois that no common law action exists against suppliers of liquor for injuries suffered as the result of intoxication caused by the liquor. ( Cunningham v. Brown (1961), 22 Ill.2d 23, 28, 174 N.E.2d 153, 156; Richardson v. Ansco, Inc. (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 731, 732, 394 N.E.2d 801, 802; Gora v. 7-11 Food Stores (1982), 109 Ill. App.3d 109, 111, 440 N.E.2d 279, 281; Zamiar v. Linderman (1985), 132 Ill. App.3d 886, 889.) The only authority contrary to these holdings is Colligan v. Cousar (1963), 38 Ill. App.2d 392, 414, 187 N.E.2d 292, 302, cited by plaintiffs on appeal, but that holding has been overruled sub silentio in Graham v. General U.S. Grant Post No. 2665 (1969), 43 Ill.2d 1, 8-9, 248 N.E.2d 657, 661. ( Wienke v. Champaign County Grain Association (1983), 113 Ill. App.3d 1005, 1009, 447 N.E.2d 1388, 1391.

( Cruse v. Aden (1889), 127 Ill. 231, 20 N.E. 73.) The law in this State remains that "[n]oncommercial suppliers of liquor are not liable under the Dramshop Act [citation], and Illinois courts have consistently refused to enlarge the scope of the Act to impose statutory liability upon anyone not engaged in the liquor business." ( Richardson v. Ansco, Inc. (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 731, 732, 394 N.E.2d 801.) "The uncompensated social host is clearly not subject to liability under the act." Heldt v. Brei (1983), 118 Ill. App.3d 798, 800, 455 N.E.2d 842.

As a result, this court has generally refused to impose liability under either the common law or the Dramshop Act on employers who supply their employees with free alcohol at employer-sponsored events. Holtz v. Amax Zinc Co., 165 Ill. App. 3d 578, 583, 519 N.E.2d 54, 58 (1988); Martin v. Palazzolo Produce Co., 146 Ill. App. 3d 1084, 1087, 497 N.E.2d 881, 883 (1986); Desmond v. Stearns, 134 Ill. App. 3d 479, 483, 480 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (1985); Thompson v. Trickle, 114 Ill. App. 3d 930, 932, 449 N.E.2d 910, 912 (1983); Wienke v. Champaign County Grain Ass'n, 113 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 1008, 447 N.E.2d 1388, 1390 (1983); Brehm v. Dobson, 15 Ill. App. 3d 285, 304 N.E.2d 149 (1973) (abstract); Richardson v. Ansco, Inc., 75 Ill. App. 3d 731, 733, 394 N.E.3d 801, 802 (1979); Miller v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 48 Ill. App. 2d 412, 423-24, 199 N.E.2d 300, 306 (1964). Korean Air relied on this body of case law to obtain summary judgment in the circuit court.

As a result, this court has generally refused to impose liability under either the common law or the Dramshop Act on employers who supply their employees with free alcohol at employer-sponsored events. Holtz v. Amax Zinc Co., 165 Ill. App. 3d 578, 583, 519 N.E.2d 54, 58 (1988); Martin v. Palazzolo Produce Co., 146 Ill. App. 3d 1084, 1087, 497 N.E.2d 881, 883 (1986); Desmond v. Stearns, 134 Ill. App. 3d 479, 483, 480 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (1985); Thompson v. Trickle, 114 Ill. App. 3d 930, 932, 449 N.E.2d 910, 912 (1983); Wienke v.Champaign County Grain Ass'n, 113 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 1008, 703, 447 N.E.2d 1388, 1390 (1983); Brehm v. Dobson, 15 Ill. App. 3d 285, 304 N.E.2d 149 (1973) (abstract); Richardson v. Ansco, Inc., 75 Ill. App. 3d 731, 733, 394 N.E.3d 801, 802 (1979); Miller v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 48 Ill. App. 2d 412, 423-24, 199 N.E.2d 300, 306 (1964). Korean Air relied on this body of case law to obtain summary judgment in the circuit court.

( Heldt v. Brei (1983), 118 Ill. App.3d 798, 455 N.E.2d 842.) Throughout history, the Illinois courts have repeatedly refused to enlarge the scope of the Dramshop Act where a person gives a glass of intoxicating liquor to a friend as a mere act of courtesy and politeness, and without any purpose or expectation of pecuniary gain or profit. ( Cruse v. Aden (1889), 127 Ill. 231, 239, 20 N.E. 73, 75; Camille v. Berry Fertilizers, Inc. (1975), 30 Ill. App.3d 1050, 1052, 334 N.E.2d 205, 206; see also Miller v. Moran (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 596, 421 N.E.2d 1046; Richardson v. Ansco, Inc. (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 731, 394 N.E.2d 801.) In addition, the courts have not extended liability even if the person served the intoxicating liquor is a minor ( Zamiar v. Linderman (1985), 132 Ill. App.3d 886, 478 N.E.2d 534; Lowe v. Rubin (1981), 98 Ill. App.3d 496, 424 N.E.2d 710) or even if the person serving or providing the intoxicating liquor is an employer ( Richardson v. Ansco, Inc. (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 731, 394 N.E.2d 801; Thompson v. Trickle (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 930, 449 N.E.2d 910). The Illinois courts have not made a distinction between an intoxicated corporate defendant, a strong able-bodied man or a minor.

"[I]f any such liability is to be established it should be done by the legislature. That position is in accord with the position Illinois courts have taken on the expansion of the Dramshop Act ( Cunningham [v. Brown (1961), 22 Ill.2d 23, 174 N.E.2d 153]; Graham v. General U.S. Grant Post No. 2665, V.F.W. (1969), 43 Ill.2d 1, 248 N.E.2d 657) and on the expansion of the common law ( Richardson [v. Ansco, Inc. (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 731, 394 N.E.2d 801])." ( 96 Ill. App.3d 596, 600.)

This contention acknowledges that no such cause of action existed at common law ( Cunningham v. Brown (1961), 22 Ill.2d 23, 28-29, 174 N.E.2d 153), nor has it been adopted by any Illinois court. In fact, it has been repeatedly held that the Dramshop Act's imposition of liability on tavern owners and tavern keepers is the exclusive remedy against such defendants for injuries to person, property or means of support by an intoxicated person or in consequence of intoxication. ( 22 Ill.2d 23, 30-31; Knierim v. Izzo (1961), 22 Ill.2d 73, 76-77, 174 N.E.2d 157; Shepherd v. Marsaglia (1961), 31 Ill. App.2d 379, 176 N.E.2d 473; Richardson v. Ansco, Inc. (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 731, 732, 394 N.E.2d 801; Miller v. Moran (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 596, 598, 421 N.E.2d 1046.) In Knierim, relying upon Cunningham, the court found there was no common law action against a tavern keeper for supplying intoxicating liquor to a person the supplier knows has no volition with regard to consuming the intoxicant.

This court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's action. See Richardson v. Ansco, Inc. (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 731, 394 N.E.2d 801. Illinois decisions have also determined that the Dramshop Act is not preempted by alleging that a minor is the tort-feasor or the injured party.

Further, in this case there is a remedy available to the injured party, a negligence action against the intoxicated tortfeasor. The case at bar is similar to Richardson v. Ansco, Inc. (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 731, 394 N.E.2d 801, in which an injured party sought to recover in a common law negligence action against an employer who allowed an employee to become intoxicated at work, with the knowledge that the employee would drive an automobile home from work. In Richardson, the defendant did not serve the alcoholic beverages but merely allowed the intoxication to occur, while in the case at bar defendants allegedly served intoxicating liquor to Booker.