Final answer:
It is false that a liquor establishment is not responsible for the actions of an intoxicated patron if staff did not know the patron was intoxicated, as establishments can be held liable under laws like Dram Shop Acts. Also, it is true that the temperance movement partly resulted from new social conditions such as urbanization and immigration.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement "A liquor establishment is not responsible for the actions of an intoxicated patron if staff did not know the patron was intoxicated" is false. In many jurisdictions, establishments that serve alcohol have a legal responsibility to monitor the consumption of their patrons. This is often regulated by laws such as Dram Shop Acts, which can hold an establishment liable for serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron, who then goes on to cause harm to themselves or others. Liability isn't solely about whether the staff knew the patron was intoxicated; it's also about whether they should have known, based on the patron's behavior or the amount of alcohol served.
The temperance movement being partly a result of new social conditions such as increasing urbanization and immigration is true. The temperance movement in the 19th and early 20th centuries was in response to various social issues, with industrialization, urbanization, and immigration among the key factors driving the push for alcohol moderation or prohibition.