When a drunk driver causes a serious wreck in Texas, the at-fault driver is rarely the only party who should answer for the harm. Under the Texas Dram Shop Act, the bar, restaurant, or other licensed establishment that kept serving an obviously intoxicated patron may also be held accountable.
But in April 2025, the Texas Supreme Court issued a decision that reshaped what it takes to prove a dram shop claim. The ruling in Raoger Corporation v. Myers raised the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, and any family pursuing a claim today needs to understand what that case requires, and how an experienced attorney builds the kind of record that meets the new standard.
What Is a Dram Shop Claim in Texas?
A dram shop claim allows a person injured by an intoxicated patron to seek compensation from the establishment that served the alcohol, not just the drunk driver. The legal basis is the Texas Dram Shop Act, codified in Chapter 2 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverages Code.
Under Section 2.02(b)(1), a provider of alcohol can be held civilly liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated patron only if two things are true:
- At the time the alcohol was served, 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, and
- The intoxication of the patron was a proximate cause of the injuries.
This is a higher standard than the common-law “knew or should have known” rule. The statute requires obvious intoxication that was apparent at the moment of service. The patron does not just need to be drunk; they need to be visibly, dangerously drunk in a way the server could see.
How Raoger v. Myers Changed the Evidence Game
On April 11, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Raoger Corporation v. Myers (No. 23-0662). The case involved a Dallas restaurant patron, Nasar Khan, who closed his tab at the establishment around 10:30 p.m., drove a friend home, and then around midnight rear-ended Barrie Myers, causing serious injuries. A blood draw roughly three hours after the crash showed a BAC of 0.139.
Myers sued the restaurant under the Dram Shop Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for the restaurant, finding no evidence that Khan appeared obviously intoxicated when he was served. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a jury could reasonably infer obvious intoxication from the BAC result and circumstantial evidence. The Texas Supreme Court then reversed the appellate court and reinstated summary judgment for the restaurant.
The Court’s reasoning matters for every dram shop case going forward. The justices made clear that the Act does not turn on how much a customer drank or what their BAC measured hours later. It turns on what was apparent to the server when the alcohol was provided. As the Court put it, the relevant inquiry is the customer’s appearance to the dram shop when he was served, not whether the customer drank an amount that may or should make some people intoxicated.
Circumstantial evidence, including BAC results, can still support a dram shop claim. But that evidence must be linked to other probative evidence of how the patron appeared at the time of service. Stacking inferences (a high BAC, plus expert testimony about how many drinks that BAC implies, plus general testimony about how an intoxicated person typically behaves) is not enough on its own.
What Raoger Means for Texans Injured by Drunk Drivers
The honest answer is that dram shop cases are harder to win than they were before Raoger. The Texas Supreme Court has confirmed that the statutory standard is, in its own words, “more onerous” than the older common-law rule. Plaintiffs cannot rely on post-crash BAC results alone, no matter how high those numbers are.
But Raoger did not close the door on dram shop liability. The Court was clear that circumstantial evidence remains available; it simply has to be properly linked to the customer’s apparent condition at the time of service. The Court even suggested what kind of evidence might have worked: expert testimony explaining how a person with a particular BAC would have been observably behaving hours earlier when the alcohol was served. That is a path forward for plaintiffs whose lawyers know how to build the right record.
The takeaway is not that dram shop claims are dead. The takeaway is that they require an attorney who understands the new evidentiary landscape and starts gathering the right evidence immediately.
What Evidence Wins a Texas Dram Shop Case After Raoger
Building a dram shop case under the post-Raoger standard requires evidence that ties the patron’s apparent condition to the moment of service. That includes:
- Eyewitness testimony from servers, bartenders, managers, and other patrons describing how the customer looked, spoke, and behaved while being served
- Surveillance and security footage from the establishment. These recordings are often overwritten within 30 days, so prompt preservation requests are critical
- Point-of-sale records showing the timing, quantity, and type of drinks served
- Credit card and tab data corroborating the patron’s drinking timeline
- Cell phone and rideshare records placing the patron at the establishment and documenting their movements
- Toxicology expert testimony reconstructing what the patron’s BAC would have been at the moment of service and how a person with that BAC would have observably presented
- Statements from the at-fault driver themselves, including admissions about how much they had to drink and how they felt while at the establishment
Most of this evidence has a short shelf life. Video gets erased. Memories fade. Servers leave their jobs. The patron and the establishment both have reasons not to cooperate. The attorney who steps in early (sending preservation letters, locking down witnesses, retaining toxicology experts before opposing counsel can position the facts) is the one who builds a winning case.
Other Important Aspects of Texas Dram Shop Law
Who Can Be Sued
Only licensed providers of alcohol can be sued under the Dram Shop Act: bars, restaurants, liquor stores, hotels, and similar establishments holding a TABC permit. Texas law does not generally extend dram shop liability to social hosts. See Reeder v. Daniel, 61 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. 2001). One significant exception applies: under Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02(b)(2), an adult who knowingly serves alcohol to a minor under 18 can be held liable for injuries the minor proximately causes.
Statute of Limitations
A dram shop claim in Texas is subject to a two-year statute of limitations under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003, generally running from the date of the injury. Waiting on that deadline is dangerous in any case, but in a dram shop case it can be fatal. The evidence that proves apparent intoxication disappears long before two years pass.
The Safe Harbor Defense
Texas provides a “safe harbor” defense for employers whose employees over-serve a customer. Under Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 106.14, if the establishment required the employee to attend a TABC-approved seller-server training program, the employee actually completed it, and the employer did not directly or indirectly encourage the violation, the establishment may avoid liability. A skilled plaintiff’s attorney investigates the establishment’s training records carefully to determine whether the safe harbor actually applies.
Proportionate Responsibility
Texas follows a modified comparative fault rule. As long as the injured person is not more than 50 percent responsible for the harm, they can recover damages, with the award reduced by their percentage of fault. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001. Dram shop defendants often try to shift blame to the injured party, which is one more reason that early, thorough investigation matters.
Frequently Asked Questions About Texas Dram Shop Claims
Can I file a dram shop claim if the drunk driver killed my loved one?
Yes. Surviving spouses, children, and parents can pursue both a wrongful death claim under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 71 and a dram shop claim against the establishment that served the at-fault driver. These claims can move forward together.
Does it matter how many drinks the driver was served?
After Raoger, the number of drinks alone is not enough to prove a dram shop case. What matters is whether the patron was observably, dangerously intoxicated when the alcohol was provided. The number of drinks may still be relevant evidence, but it has to be combined with proof of apparent intoxication at the time of service.
What if there were no witnesses to how the driver behaved at the bar?
It depends on the case. Surveillance footage, server testimony, and toxicology experts can sometimes fill the gap. This is exactly the kind of evidence that benefits from early investigation. A case that looks thin on day one can become much stronger once the right records are pulled.
How long does the establishment have to keep video footage?
Most surveillance systems overwrite footage within 30 to 90 days. Some establishments may overwrite it even sooner. This is the single most important reason to contact an attorney quickly after a serious drunk driving wreck.
Can I sue both the drunk driver and the establishment?
Yes. In most serious cases, both the driver and the dram shop are named as defendants, and a jury can apportion fault between them. The dram shop’s insurance often provides meaningful additional compensation beyond what is available from the driver’s own policy.
About Jonathan Winocour
This article reflects the trial experience of Jonathan Winocour, founder and principal attorney of Winocour Law. A fourth-generation Texas attorney whose family has practiced law in the state since 1889, Jonathan has spent more than two decades representing injured Texans and grieving families in high-stakes civil litigation.
Dram shop cases are a core part of his practice. He has secured Texas dram shop wrongful death settlements ranging from $560,000 to $3 million, and he speaks regularly at MADD and TABC roundtables on impaired driving and civil liability. These are the same evidentiary issues that drive the post-Raoger landscape.
Jonathan earned his J.D. from Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, where he was a Dean’s List student. After law school he clerked for the Honorable Craig Smith of Dallas County’s 192nd District Court, an early experience that shaped his approach to trial preparation. He is recognized as a Diplomate of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and a Top 100 Trial Lawyer, and he is licensed in all Texas state courts and multiple federal jurisdictions.
When you call Winocour Law about a dram shop case, you reach a firm with a track record of taking on negligent establishments and their insurers, and the courtroom experience to build evidence that meets the Texas Supreme Court’s standard.
Legal Authorities Cited
Case Law
Raoger Corporation v. Myers, No. 23-0662 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2025).
Reeder v. Daniel, 61 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. 2001).
Statutes
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code § 2.02 (Dram Shop Act, civil liability for providers).
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code § 106.14 (safe harbor for employer training).
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury).
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 33.001 (proportionate responsibility).
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 71 (wrongful death and survival actions).
Talk With a Texas Dram Shop Lawyer Today
Dram shop cases have always been hard. After Raoger v. Myers, they require more careful evidence development than ever before. But the cases are still winnable, and the establishments that profit from over-serving dangerous patrons still need to be held accountable when their conduct destroys a life.
At Winocour Law, we represent injured Texans and grieving families across Dallas and the state. If a drunk driver has hurt you or taken someone you love, contact us for a free, confidential case evaluation. We will explain your rights, investigate what happened at the establishment, and tell you honestly whether you have a viable dram shop claim under current Texas law.