F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez - 237 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. 2007)

Rule:

Dram shops are liable if they provide alcoholic beverages to an individual that is obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presents a clear danger to himself and others, and the intoxication of the patron was a proximate cause of the injuries. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. § 2.02(b). These requirements were promulgated by the passage of the Dram Shop Act in 1987. The Supreme Court of Texas holds that dram shops are responsible for the proportion of damages they cause or contribute to cause, as set forth in the Proportionate Responsibility Act. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 33.003. 

Facts:

After spending the day cutting firewood while consuming a case and a half of beer, Roberto Ruiz drove his truck to a Mr. Cut Rate convenience store owned by F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. (F.F.P.) and purchased a twelve-pack of beer. The store's assistant manager, Carol Solis, sold the beer to Ruiz. Ruiz then climbed into his truck, opened a can of beer, and put the open beer can between his legs. The family was injured when Ruiz’ vehicle swerved in their lane of traffic and struck their vehicle. A jury awarded the family $ 35 million from F.F.P. in the family's dram shop action under Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. § 2.02 for damages arising from an automobile accident caused by a drunk driver. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed. F.F.P. petitioned for review.

Issue:

Did the trial court err by proceeding to trial with F.F.P. as the only defendant, and refusing to submit jury questions for determination of Ruiz’ negligence and proportion of responsibility?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court held that dram shops were responsible for the proportion of damages they caused or contributed to cause under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.003. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by severing F.F.P.’s contribution claim against Ruiz under Tex. R. Civ. P. 41, proceeding to trial with F.F.P. as the only defendant, and refusing to submit jury questions for determination of Ruiz’ negligence and proportion of responsibility. F.F.P.’s claim against Ruiz was interwoven with the family's action against F.F.P. To succeed on a claim against F.F.P., the family had to prove that Ruiz was obviously intoxicated and that his conduct proximately caused damages, the same facts and issues that would be litigated in a separate suit by the owner against Ruiz.