Steak & Ale of Tex., Inc. v. Borneman - 62 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. App. 2001)

Rule:

In order to hold a provider of alcoholic beverages liable under the alcoholic beverage code, a plaintiff must prove: (1) at the time that the provider sold or served the alcohol it was apparent to the provider that the recipient was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others, and (2) the intoxication of that individual proximately caused the damages suffered. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. § 2.02(b) (Vernon 1995). The test is an objective one.

Facts:

A driver and another person went to the bar and grill to get drunk. They were underage drinkers, but the appellant bar and grill sold them several alcoholic drinks. As they were leaving by car, the driver wrecked the car and the accident victim, who was a passenger in the car, was injured. Appellee accident victim brought suit against appellant for a dram shop violation. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the accident victim. The appellate court reversed the judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the bar and grill. The Texas Supreme Court found the appellate court should not have rendered judgment and remanded the case to the appellate court.

Issue:

Was there sufficient evidence to establish a cause of action under the Texas Dram Shop Act? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court noted that the cause of action created by the Texas Dram Shop Act was exclusive, applied in certain limited circumstances, and required an onerous burden of proof for an injured plaintiff. In order to establish liability under the Dram Shop Act, it must be apparent to the provider that the individual being sold the alcoholic beverage was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others. In this case, the court found that more than a scintilla of evidence existed that the driver was so intoxicated that he presented a clear danger to himself and others. The court further found that the evidence was legally sufficient to show that it was apparent to the bar and grill's staff that the driver was intoxicated. Moreover, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in that the jury instruction as to what the law forbade misstated the law because Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. § 2.02 provided the victim's sole remedy. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.