Liquor Liability Laws in Texas
Texas Attorney Michael Grossman Explains What You Should Know About Drunk Driving Accidents
If you are not an attorney, liquor liability laws can be complex terrain to navigate. The validity of these cases is often criticized and misunderstood. However, legal statutes and case law support the fact that these laws stem from common sense ideas that we can explain here.
If you or a loved one has been injured, or someone close to you has been killed in a drunken driving accident in or near Tyler, Texas, call the drunk driver accident attorneys of Grossman Law Offices.
With more than twenty years of experience successfully litigating cases predicated upon a Texas Dram Shop Cause of Action, the attorneys at Grossman Law Offices are well credentialed and can readily assist you in getting the justice you deserve.
This article, while here to inform you of your rights and responsibilities, is no substitute for the assistance one of our attorneys can provide. Below you will find useful information to help you understand Texas Dram Shop Laws that assign liability to parties that may be legally, entirely or in part, responsible for the death or injury of your loved one, what the challenges are in pursuing this kind of civil case, and some of the types of cases and claims we can initiate to afford you some relief for your anguish, pain, suffering, and related expenses.
The Basics
The legal implications and damages involved in a drunk driving accident are far more severe and intricate than the typical auto collision. The most noteworthy distinctions are:
- Injuries sustained in accidents involving a drunk driver are typically more severe, and have a higher fatality rate, which typically means there are more financial damages and, therefore, the legal battles become decidedly more aggressive, making having competent legal representation of the utmost importance.
- Often there are multiple parties who have violated laws that are in place to protect victims of this type of collision, which means you are best served by a multi-faceted strategy that assesses the value that can be recovered or gained by holding each party responsible.
Defendants in Intoxicated Accident Cases
Most people think that the most obvious person to pursue legal remedy from in an alcohol related collision case is the driver, but often, individual drunk drivers who may bear the bulk of the responsibility for the incident are often not the most viable candidates if your immediate need is financial relief for medical or funeral related costs.
Under the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, statutes state that in addition to suing the drunk driver for his or her negligence, victims also have the right, under what is referred to as "Dram Shop Law," to pursue damages for the negligence of bars, restaurants or other persons or business entities that enabled the drunk driver to become intoxicated enough to cause the accident.
This liability was established under the theory that car accidents are not merely caused by the immediate action or reflex in the moment of the accident, but can be caused by a chain of events that led up to the accident. Under this logic, any entity that contributed to the chain of events that caused the accident can be held vicariously liable.
Why the Bar?
While most of us probably consider the personal responsibility of the driver to be most important on an emotional level, it is important from an ethical perspective, to ensure that bars and restaurants are not knowingly serving alcohol to drivers who get involved in these collisions when it is clear that someone who is leaving their establishment and may be operating a vehicle when their behavior or reflexes appear to be erratic, or they have consumed an amount of alcohol that puts their blood-alcohol-content (BAC) well above the legal limit. If these establishments were diligent in ensuring their patrons did not become overly intoxicated, drunk driving accidents could much more easily be avoided.
In addition to having greater means to provide financial remedies than the individual driver, the public message should be sent that the establishments and their employees should not be endangering the public by setting potentially dangerous drunk drivers out on the street simply because the bar tender wants to keep collecting the patron’s generous tips or the bar wants to make more money.
In a lawsuit in which the driver and the bar are co-defendants, the court will assign damages for each party’s negligence, and the financial remedy coming from each source will be proportional to the court’s assessment of each defendant’s percentage of liability. Thus, while you may get more financial remedy by filing a case against both the driver and the bar, it is important to realize that this does not necessarily mean that you will get more money by digging into the pockets of the business over the means of the individual driver. It simply allows a distribution of the responsibility which means, ultimately, you have a greater chance of actually getting financial recovery that goes beyond what the individual driver would be able to pay.
Specific Rights and Responsibilities
Under Texas law, it is not only illegal to be behind the wheel of a car with a BAC of more than .08, but it is also illegal to be out in public with this level of intoxication, and it is also illegal for bars or establishments that serve alcohol to serve individuals an amount of alcohol that put them over this limit.
Science has proven that the consumption of alcohol impairs reflexes, judgment and inhibitions, and thus, while a sober person may know his or her limit, once he or she has had a few drinks, that person may no longer be able to make a sound judgment of when he or she is too drunk to drive, and thus the serving party bears the responsibility of safeguarding the public and taking the appropriate action to prevent this from happening.
Many establishments have implemented programs to reward patrons who have a designated driver, or have made partnerships with taxi companies to ensure that their clientele is not driving under the influence. That being said, there is nothing more motivating to the establishments who have not implemented such safeguards, than the potential negative publicity and financial cost of a lawsuit. In most cases these establishments will likely be willing to settle and award financial remedy for medical, auto and funeral related expenses caused by a drunk driving incident for which they bear a portion of the legal responsibility, and with hope, they will then be more diligent in helping prevent public intoxication and alcohol related accidents.
Proximate Cause
Because bartenders are reasonably expected to know that it is illegal to over serve their patrons, if they choose to disregard this responsibility, they become the proximate cause of related injuries.
Legal Expectations
- Bars are required to have all of their servers licensed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, which entails each server’s participation in training that requires learning and understanding their rules and responsibilities and the consequences associated with failing to follow them. A bar tender cannot simply be unaware of how they should transact their business.
- Bars are expected to have written policies and procedures for handling the distribution and tracking of alcohol served.
- Bars are required to have written policies and procedures for how to deal with overly intoxicated patrons.
- Servers are expected to be on the lookout for signs of intoxication.
The Safe Harbor Defense
Provided a bar or alcohol serving establishment has met the legal obligations outlined above, they cannot legally be held responsible for any degree of negligence in a drunk driving accident. However, many establishments may try to employ this defense whether or not it truthfully applies.
The unfortunate reality in preparing a case against an establishment using the Safe Harbor Defense is that the burden is on the victim or plaintiff to establish proof that there was a blatant disregard for the above guidelines. Dram Shop cases are not subjective, and therefore they can only be won if they clearly deserve to be prosecuted.
Next Steps
Deciding to get involved in a lawsuit can be an emotional experience, and you may have concerns about the cost, the time constraints, and in some cases, the consideration of the relationship you have with the person who caused the accident. However, it would be unwise to allow time to slip by without looking out for the remedies you are entitled to and lose the evidence and opportunity to protect your interests in the matter because if you wait too long, your options may run out and the related expenses you incur could get beyond your control.
If you or a loved one was involved, injured or killed in a DUI accident, call Grossman Law Offices at 1-855-258-1111 (toll free) for a free consultation, and we can discuss your concerns and help you find the right course of action to get the justice you deserve.
Recovered for client injured in a liquor liability accident.
$100,000.00
$40,000.00
$5,000.00
Recovery for passenger who suffered broken leg in a drunken driving accident.
$109,500.00
$41,000.00
$30.00
(policy limits) Our firm was hired to pursue an intoxicated driver who killed an elderly school crossing guard. The fatal accident occurred as the decedent was escorting a woman and her child across the roadway through a crosswalk. The defendant then sped through the school zone, in an intoxicated a state, and struck the decedent who died on the scene.
The family hired our firm to investigate and pursue the defendant under a wrongful death cause of action. Following our investigation and preliminary vehicle inspection, our attorneys issued a Stowers' demand to the defendants. A significant factor in resolving this claim is that merely days before we submitted our demand to the defendant' insurance carrier, we won a large case against the very same insurance carrier, which was one of several such victories secured against the carrier in our firm's history. Our threats of litigation were therefore heeded and the defendants offered policy limits to settle the claim without the need to file suit.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Our client suffered a punctured colon and numerous soft tissue injuries in an alcohol-related car accident. The accident occurred as the defendant driver crashed his car into a concrete median. The plaintiff, a passenger in the vehicle, alleged that the defendant driver was over served alcohol to such an extent that he was several times the legal limit. As such, a claim was brought against the defendant driver and the bar which over served him. A settlement was reached with the defendant driver and the plaintiff turned his focus on the bar in question. The case was resolved successfully through litigation. Based on the egregious conduct of the bar and it's numerous TABC violations, the defendant's liquor license was revoked soon after the case was resolved.
$337,500.00
$134,000.00
$3,750.00
(policy limits) An incredibly intoxicated driver drove head-on into a vehicle, killing several of the vehicle's occupants. The defendants had limited assets, yet an alternative policy was uncovered, which the defendants argued was non applicable. Under threat of litigation, our attorneys negotiated a settlement for the policy limits.
$300,000.00
$132,000.00
$0.00
A young woman lost her life after a bar over served her to more than three times the legal limit resulting in her burning to death in a single-vehicle accident. Witnesses stated that she was so intoxicated that she could barely make it to her vehicle without assistance. Through litigation, our attorneys ascertained the necessary evidence to prove that the establishment provided alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, thus resulting in her ultimate demise.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$25,000.00
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
$97,500.00
$48,750.00
$0.00
(policy limits) Recovery for pedestrian who suffered a broken leg when he was hit by a drunken driver.
$100,000.00
$33,000.00
$1,000.00
Our firm was hired by the minor child and parents of a young man who was killed in a motorcycle accident after being over served alcohol at a South Padre Island bar. The plaintiffs hired our firm to investigate the claim on the basis that the decedent was over the legal limit at the time of his death. In initial attempts to settle the case out of court, the defendants denied liability. Suit was filed soon thereafter.
The defendants initially argued that the decedent never consumed alcohol on their premises. Through physical evidence and deposition testimony to the contrary, we were able to conclusively prove that the decedent had indeed been drinking at the establishment.
The defendants then asserted allegations that the decedent's minor child was not actually his biological child, which would bar his claim entirely. A DNA test was performed and this argument was defeated.
The defendants then asserted the safe harbor defense. Our attorneys argued that the defendants did not qualify for safe harbor protection due to the fact that their servers were not all licensed providers. However, while this element was being addressed, our attorneys focused their attention on addressing the second element of the safe harbor defense regarding the bar's encouragement of the over service of alcohol. The defendants claimed that they would never serve the double-shot Bacardi cocktails that witnesses claimed the decedent drank several of. We sent private investigators into the bar to order the same drinks that the decedent consumed on the night of his death and the very same bar tenders who over served the decedent, without hesitation, served copious amounts of alcohol to the investigators, all of which was captured on hidden camera.
Once the safe harbor defense was defeated, the defendants argued that the decedent's BAC was low enough at the time of his death (as recorded by the hospital) that he would not have necessarily appeared obviously intoxicated to the servers and therefore the bar should not be held liable even if he had been over served. Eyewitness testimony refuted this.
Additionally, our firm's testifying medical expert reviewed the medical records related to the emergency helicopter flight that transported the decedent to the hospital after his accident. She determined that the EMS technicians administered numerous blood transfusions while in flight. Armed with this newfound data, our medical expert reverse extrapolated and determined conclusively that the decedent's BAC was actually in the range of .19-.21 at the time of the accident, though it was drastically diluted by the time he arrived at the hospital, which accounted for the relatively low BAC found in the hospital's medical records. This testimony proved to be pivotal in the case, resulting in a successful recovery for our clients.
$350,000.00
$140,000.00
$40,000.00