Devoted to You.
Winning for Your Future.
If you were sexually assaulted at a bar, a nightclub, a concert, or a rented party venue, or on the way home from one, having been drinking does not make what happened your fault. Michigan’s criminal sexual conduct law treats a person as “mentally incapacitated” when they are “rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling the person’s conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, alcohol, or other substance” (MCL 750.520a(k)). Since an amendment effective October 10, 2023, that definition reaches alcohol you chose to drink, not only something slipped to you (2023 PA 65).
You may have a civil claim against the person who assaulted you, and in some situations against the venue. Sexual abuse attorneys at Vahdat Weisman Law represent survivors across Michigan. Call (734) 469-4994 for a free, confidential consultation. No attorney fee unless we recover for you.
You have the right to a medical forensic exam and evidence kit up to five days after the assault, and you should not be billed for the direct costs of the exam (MDHHS Voices4). You cannot be required to make a police report to receive the exam. A nurse examiner can document injuries and collect evidence that is stored while a decision about reporting is made.
If drugging is suspected, ask about drug testing right away. The state’s guidance says some drugs can only be detected within 12 hours, and it also says a police report is required for that drug testing to be conducted. GHB, one of the drugs most associated with drink spiking, was described by the U.S. Department of Justice as detectable in urine for roughly 8 to 12 hours and in blood for 4 to 8 hours after ingestion (DOJ National Drug Intelligence Center, 2004). A negative result taken later does not prove nothing was in the drink.
Anything that shows the night is worth keeping: a card receipt or tab, a wristband or ticket stub, the clothes you wore in a paper bag, texts, photos, rideshare receipts, and the names of anyone who saw you. Venue cameras may record over themselves on a cycle, so a written request to preserve video should go out early.
Sometimes, and the answer turns on what staff knew and did. Michigan does not require a bar, club, or concert venue to anticipate crime or hire security. Its duty is narrower: when staff is aware of something happening on the premises that poses a risk of imminent and foreseeable harm to an identifiable patron, the business must respond reasonably, which the Michigan Supreme Court limited to reasonably expediting the involvement of police (MacDonald v PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001)). That case arose at an outdoor concert amphitheater where patrons had been throwing chunks of sod.
The same limited duty applies to landlords. In Bailey v Schaaf, 494 Mich 595 (2013), a resident told security guards patrolling an apartment complex that a man was brandishing a gun and threatening to kill someone; the guards did not respond, and a guest at a gathering was shot. The Court held that notice of an imminent threat triggers a duty to call police. If your assault happened at a party room or event space inside a residential complex, that rule may apply.
So the questions are concrete. Did a bartender, bouncer, or manager see someone harassing you or following you out? Did anyone ask staff for help, and did anyone call police? If the venue used an outside security company, a claim against that company faces its own hurdles (Bailey v Schaaf (On Remand), 304 Mich App 324 (2014)). Our negligent security page covers the broader rules.
A different situation arises when staff did not simply fail to act but took a step that put you in danger. Examples include helping a patron who could barely stand into a car with someone she did not arrive with, or letting a stranger take an incapacitated guest into a closed-off area. A claim built on what staff actively did may be analyzed under ordinary negligence principles rather than the narrow police-call duty.
The employee can be sued directly. The venue is a separate question. Michigan does not hold an employer automatically responsible for an employee’s sexual assault, because it rejected the theory that the job itself aided the assault (Zsigo v Hurley Medical Center, 475 Mich 215 (2006)).
The business can still be responsible for its own negligence in hiring, keeping, or supervising that person. Those claims turn on what the employer knew or should have known about the employee’s dangerous tendencies before the assault (Hersh v Kentfield Builders, Inc., 385 Mich 410 (1971); Brown v Brown, 478 Mich 545 (2007)). Prior complaints from patrons, earlier incidents, and how management responded are what we look for.
Michigan’s dram shop act allows a suit against a licensed establishment that sold alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person when that sale was a proximate cause of the injury (MCL 436.1801(1), (2)). Someone has to have seen that person actually appear drunk; a blood alcohol number alone will not do it (Reed v. Breton, 475 Mich 531 (2006)). Receipts and tabs help show how much was served, and witnesses and video show how the person looked.
The act has strict rules:
Exclusivity does not wipe out every other claim. Courts ask first whether a claim arises out of the sale of alcohol; if not, it can proceed on ordinary rules (Mann v Shusteric Enterprises, Inc., Docket No. 120651 (Mich June 30, 2004), applying Jackson). A claim that staff ignored a threat they could see, for example, can run alongside a dram shop claim.
If the bar overserved you rather than the assailant, the act does not give you a claim, because the visibly intoxicated person has no cause of action under it (MCL 436.1801(8)). At a private house party, Michigan generally limits a host’s liability for serving alcohol to serving minors (Longstreth v Gensel, 423 Mich 675 (1985)).
Giving someone a controlled substance without their consent in order to commit criminal sexual conduct is a separate felony carrying up to 20 years, and it applies whether or not the person is convicted of the assault itself (MCL 333.7401a). In a civil case, the person who drugged you and the person who assaulted you may be different people, and each can be named. Memory gaps, sudden sickness after one or two drinks, and what friends saw are all evidence. Our page on drug-facilitated sexual assault covers testing and proof in more detail.
It may be raised. Michigan has a defense that bars recovery when an injured person’s impaired ability from alcohol or drugs made that person 50% or more the cause of the event, and reduces damages below that (MCL 600.2955a). A venue may also try to place responsibility on the assailant.
Your intoxication is also evidence for you. The more impaired you were, the stronger the showing that you could not consent and that anyone around you could see it. Being assaulted is not an event you cause by drinking.
If the assault happened in a rideshare after leaving, separate rules on background checks, insurance, and the company’s role apply; see our Uber and Lyft sexual assault page. What staff saw as you left can still matter to a claim against the venue.
| Claim | Deadline | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Against the person who assaulted you, for criminal sexual conduct | 10 years | MCL 600.5805(6) |
| Negligence against the venue | 3 years | MCL 600.5805(2) |
| Assault and battery | 2 years | MCL 600.5805(3) |
| Dram shop | 2 years, plus 120-day notice after retaining counsel | MCL 436.1801(3) |
Whether the 10-year period reaches a venue’s own negligence, rather than the assailant’s conduct, is argued case by case, so plan around the shorter clocks. More on timing is on our sexual abuse statute of limitations page. No police report, charge, or conviction is required for the 10-year claim; see suing without criminal charges.
Bar and nightclub cases sit where three bodies of law meet: the limited premises duty from MacDonald, the dram shop act’s notice rules and exclusivity, and the employer rules from Zsigo. We handle these cases with discretion, and many survivors file under initials or as “Jane Doe” with the court’s permission.
From our Livonia office, we represent clients throughout Michigan. Founding partners Kara E. Weisman and Jordan S. Vahdat have each been honored as Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Our attorneys are members of the State Bar of Michigan and active in the Michigan Association for Justice. We advance case costs, we work in English and Spanish, and we are available 24/7.
Kara E. Weisman is a founding partner of Vahdat Weisman Law in Livonia and handles medical malpractice, wrongful death, civil rights, and personal injury claims. She clerked at the Ingham County Probate Court and for the Federal Defender’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, and is admitted in all Michigan state courts and in the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan.
If you were sexually assaulted at or after a bar, nightclub, concert, or party venue in Michigan, call Vahdat Weisman Law at (734) 469-4994 or contact us online. The conversation is free and confidential. Available 24/7, serving all of Michigan, with Spanish-speaking staff. Dedicated to Justice. Devoted to You. Winning for Your Future.
Reviewed by Kara E. Weisman, Vahdat Weisman Law. Last reviewed October 2026.
This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique, and prior results do not guarantee future success.