Houston Dram Shop Lawyer

Anyone who provided, sold or served the alcohol in circumstances the statute covers — most commonly a bar, restaurant, club or venue holding a licence, but the language of § 2.02(b) is about the act of providing rather than about the type of business. Section 2.02(c) reaches further in one specific situation: an adult aged 21 or over who knowingly served a minor under 18, or allowed a minor to be served on premises the adult owns or leases, is liable for damages proximately caused by that minor's intoxication — with the minor's parent, guardian or spouse expressly excluded.

It sets a visible-at-the-time standard rather than a blood-alcohol one. The statute requires that it was apparent to the provider, at the moment of service, that the person was obviously intoxicated to the extent of presenting a clear danger to himself and others. So a later blood test showing a high concentration is not automatically enough — the question is what the server could observe. That is proved with evidence of consumption and presentation: the number and timing of drinks from point-of-sale data and receipts, interior camera footage, and accounts from staff and other patrons.

Point-of-sale records showing what was served and when; card statements and receipts; interior security footage showing the person's condition; server and manager accounts; staffing and training records; and any prior incident history at the premises. The problem is durability. Interior footage is commonly overwritten within a fortnight, point-of-sale data is archived, and staff turnover in hospitality means the server who poured the drinks may be unreachable within a couple of months. A written preservation demand in the first days is frequently decisive.

Then the claim is difficult, and that is the correct outcome under the statute rather than a failure of the case. Chapter 2 does not make a provider an insurer against every consequence of drinking; it targets service to someone whose intoxication was apparent and dangerous at the time. Where the evidence shows a person who was served normally and showed no visible impairment, the dram shop route is not available — but the ordinary claim against the driver remains entirely intact, and § 2.02(a) expressly preserves the common law action against the individual whose consumption caused the harm.

Ordinarily Harris County if the establishment or the crash is here, with the civil district courts at 201 Caroline Street, Houston. A licensed venue is generally better insured than an individual driver, which is precisely why the claim matters where injuries are catastrophic and the driver carries only the $30,000 Texas minimum under § 601.072. It also means the defence is professional and well resourced from the first day, and that the venue's own investigation of the evening begins long before yours does.

Within days. Everything that proves the case sits inside a business that has no obligation to volunteer it and every commercial reason not to. The trail is usually financial and electronic: the driver's card statements, receipts, mobile payment records, phone location data and social media around the hours before the crash, plus whatever the police investigation recorded about the last place of service. Once identified, a preservation demand should follow immediately, because retention cycles do the destroying long before anyone acts in bad faith.

Because § 2.03(a) makes it exclusive: the liability of providers under Chapter 2 for the actions of their employees, customers, members or guests who are or become intoxicated is in lieu of common law or other statutory warranties and duties. So there is no parallel negligence claim against the same provider for the same service — the statutory test is the test. What § 2.02(a) preserves is different: the common law claim against the individual whose own consumption caused the harm, which is your ordinary claim against the driver.

Because over-service alone is not liability. Section 2.02(b)(2) requires proof that the intoxication of the recipient was a proximate cause of the damages suffered, which is a distinct question from whether the person was visibly drunk when served. In practice that means connecting the impairment to the manner of driving and to the collision — through the physical evidence of the crash, the driving behaviour witnesses describe, and the timeline between the last service and the impact. A gap in that chain defeats the claim even where the service was plainly improper.

It adds a defendant with commercial insurance, which is frequently the difference between a claim limited by a minimum policy and one that reflects the loss. It does not replace the claim against the driver — both proceed, with responsibility apportioned under Chapter 33 and the 50 percent bar in § 33.001 still applying to your own share. It also lengthens the case, because a venue defends vigorously and the evidence has to be extracted through discovery rather than requested politely.

Immediately, and before you know whether the claim exists. That sounds backwards, but identifying the establishment and sending a preservation demand are useful even if the evidence later shows service was proper — whereas waiting until you are sure guarantees the footage is gone. The consultation is free and there is no obligation, and representation is on a contingency fee set out in writing before you sign. The cost of asking early is nothing; the cost of asking late is usually the claim.