“When Should a Business Be Blamed for Overserving? Texas Supreme Court Weighs Line in Drunk Driving Case” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — on public policy. politics, government and national affairs.
The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on whether a business can be held liable under state law for injuries caused by a drunk driving customer, even if other participants in that business said the customer was not. he appeared to be physically intoxicated.
Barrie Myers is suing the Cadot restaurant in Dallas for allegedly serving alcohol to a Texas man, Nasar Khan, who rear-ended her car in November 2018 while drunk. When taken to a nearby hospital later that night, Khan’s blood alcohol content was found to be 0.139%, higher than the 0.08% required to be legally intoxicated. Khan later testified that hours before the crash, he had three or four drinks while dining at Cadot’s with a friend.
Myers is asking for the case to go to trial. A ruling in favor of Myers could further strengthen an existing state law that aims to hold businesses responsible for passing alcohol to already intoxicated patrons.
Myers sued Cadot under the Texas Dram Shop Act, a law passed in 1987 that allows victims of drunk driving to sue businesses that serve alcohol to a person who is “visibly intoxicated to the extent that he poses a clear danger for yourself and others”. Texans who have been victims of drunken driving incidents have sought relief under state law for decades, sometimes in large sums.
The Texas Dram Shop law also protects those who suffer a “personal injury or property damage” as a result of the actions of an intoxicated individual. Texas is one of 42 states with similar laws. Washington, DC has one too.
In September 2021, a district court in Dallas sided with Cadot and ruled out a trial. But almost two years later, in July 2023, a state appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, saying Myers’ question about whether Khan was “visibly intoxicated” while dining at Cadot’s was valid.
Cadot then petitioned for the case to go to the Texas Supreme Court, asking the justices to overturn the appeals court decision and allow the case to go to trial.
Oral arguments Monday in the Supreme Court focused on whether it was reasonably apparent that Khan was intoxicated while at Cadot.
Steven Knight, a Houston-based attorney representing Cadot, argued that “everyone who saw [Khan] at the restaurant testified that he did not show any signs of intoxication.”
He also pointed out that liability under the Texas Dram Shop Act is based on how an individual appears when served alcohol, not the number of drinks served during a given period. Some justices were skeptical of that argument, including newly appointed Justice James Sullivan.
“Suppose bartender Cadot lined up 100 shots of tequila, or some other bad idea, lined them all up, and watched Khan drink each one,” Sullivan said. “Why is that not sufficient within the meaning of the statute to make it clear to the provider that the individual was visibly intoxicated to the extent that he posed a clear and present danger to himself and others?
Matthew Kita, an attorney representing Myers, argued that Khan’s intoxication would have been more than apparent given his high blood alcohol content recorded hours later. “Something can be obvious and also be ignored,” he said.
Kita added that an individual bartender who has received state training can fully understand the impact that different levels of alcohol can have on a person and that they can “even lie about what they saw when they served the drink”. He also cited deposition testimony in which Khan said he was over-served that November evening and that the person serving him at Cadot’s should have noticed he was drunk.
In addition, Kita raised doubts whether Khan had only three to four drinks at Cadot. A petition filed in Kita Court in late 2023 argued that Khan would have had to drink 11 to 19 “standard drinks” to reach the blood alcohol content recorded later that night. Khan has previously testified that he did not drink alcohol anywhere but Cadot that evening.
“The evidence that he had additional drinks is the fact that it is impossible for him to have only had four drinks in that window and have a blood alcohol content of 0.13 at 3 o’clock in the morning,” Kita said.
The Texas Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case before its term ends at the end of June.
This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/13/texas-supreme-court-drunk-driving/ .
The Texas Tribune is a nonpartisan, member-supported newsroom that informs and engages Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
