On April 11, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Raoger Corporation v. Barrie Myers. The underlying facts show that Nasar Khan arrived at a restaurant around 9:45 or 10:00 p.m. and closed his tab around 10:30 p.m. Khan drove a friend back to her apartment and did not leave the apartment until shortly before midnight. Khan then rear-ended Myers, causing serious injury. Roughly three hours later, blood was drawn showing a BAC of .139. Khan testified that he was “100% sober” when he arrived at the restaurant and that he only drank alcohol at the restaurant. However, the amount of drinks Khan consumed was disputed.
The Texas Dram Shop Act provides for liability based “not on the amount of alcohol a consumer was served or consumed but on whether it was apparent to the provider that the customer was obviously intoxicated to the extent he presented a clear danger when the provider served him.” Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02(b)(1). After the restaurant was sued for violating the act, the restaurant moved for summary judgment because there was no evidence presented showing Khan presented a clear danger when the bartender served him, which was granted by the trial court.
The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed finding a fact issue because “a reasonable jury could make the necessary finding based on concessions Khan himself made in his deposition about his appearance and demeanor.” The Texas Supreme Court reversed: “the Act does not just require that the provider served a customer when nit knew or should have known that the customer was intoxicated; instead, it requires proof that the provider served the customer when it was apparent to the provider that the customer was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others.” The Texas Supreme Court noted that this creates a much more onerous burden of proof for an injured plaintiff than the common-law “knew or should have known standard.”
Plaintiff relied on circumstantial evidence to circumvent summary judgment: “Khan conceded in his deposition that it was ‘possible’ that he ‘might have’ exhibited signs of intoxication at [the restaurant], that [the restaurant] ‘served somebody who was intoxicated’ and that he believes that the ‘server should have observed that he was intoxicated while he was dining at the [restaurant]’”.
The Plaintiff also relied on testimony from the bartender that if someone consumed 8 drinks the probably would have showed signs of intoxication including slurred speech, abnormal walking, and being loud and obnoxious.
The Texas Supreme Court found that none of this evidence was relevant. Instead, the Court held that the “relevant inquiry is the customer’s appearance to the dram shop when he was served—not whether the customer drank an amount of alcohol at the dram shop that may or should make some people very intoxicated.”
Therefore, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and concluded the trial court correctly granted summary judgment.
###
Christopher Chapaneri a distinguished Lydecker attorney with extensive expertise in civil litigation, construction defect, premises liability, amusement park litigation, commercial motor vehicle/trucking, employment law, and environmental litigation—including mold exposure and vegetation management/overspray matters. Chapaneri also has a robust appellate practice, having successfully handled cases before the Texas Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In addition, Chapaneri brings substantial experience in handling high exposure and high-risk cases, further strengthening Lydecker’s ability to serve clients across multiple industries in Texas and beyond. Chapaneri also provides services in the State of Oklahoma.
