Dallas Trial Team Successfully Defends Convenience Store Against Dram Shop Liability Claims

Alcohol-Related Accident Leads to Dram Shop Liability Claims

The case arose from the tragic death of an 18 year-old high-school senior on prom night. Just before 1 a.m., the decedent was driving on a country road at a high rate of speed when he left the roadway and struck a tree and fence. He was killed on impact, and toxicology results showed that his BAC was 0.105 at the time of the accident. Plaintiff, the decedent’s mother, claimed that the decedent purchased alcohol from our client’s convenience store in Dallas on three separate occasions earlier that day and night. Plaintiff presented testimony from witnesses who claimed that our client sold alcohol to the decedent at around 1:30 p.m., 8:30 p.m., and 10:30 p.m. and that the decedent was visibly intoxicated on at least one of those occasions.

However, the digital evidence proved otherwise and the Thompson Coe trial team was able to show the jury that the only time the decedent’s cell phone was in the general vicinity of the Defendant’s store was around 10:30 p.m. Additionally, the defense team used geolocation data from photographs of the decedent to contradict the testimony of the Plaintiff’s witnesses and prove that the decedent was physically located in Collin County and not at the Defendant’s store in Dallas County as they claimed.

The defense team also disproved the plaintiff’s theory that the decedent had turned his cell off at various points throughout the day to hide his location. They showed the jury surveillance video of the decedent at another convenience store approximately 30 miles away from Defendant’s store around 11:30 p.m. wherein he exhibited no signs of intoxication. The defense toxicologist expert testified that it would be scientifically impossible for the decedent to be obviously intoxicated at Defendant’s store and then appear perfectly normal on surveillance video less than an hour later. Our toxicologist also calculated the decedent’s BAC during the times that he allegedly visited our client’s store based on eyewitness testimony about his alcohol consumption and explained to the jury that the decedent would not have exhibited any obvious signs of intoxication at those levels.

The decedent and his prom date went to an after-prom party in a field after leaving the second convenience store where he consumed an unknown amount of alcohol from an unknown source. The defense toxicologist explained to the jury that the post-mortem tests proved that the decedent was drinking up until the time the accident occurred. The decedent left the field party in a hurry because the cops had been called and crashed his vehicle seconds later.

Comparative Negligence in Texas Dram Shop Defense

After Plaintiff rested, Shelby moved for directed verdict on the Plaintiff’s common law causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, negligent training/supervision, and gross negligence because the Texas Dram Shop Act provides the exclusive remedy for claims arising from the sale, service, or provision of alcohol.

After both sides rested, Shelby moved for directed verdict on some of the plaintiff’s wrongful death and survival damages claims. Specifically, the judge granted Shelby’s motion for directed verdict on Plaintiff’s loss of inheritance, pecuniary loss (except for funeral expenses), exemplary damages, and conscious pain and suffering damages. The decedent was an athlete at a Dallas high school with offers to play Division 1 basketball in college and was expected to sign an offer the day after the accident occurred.

The jury found that our client was not negligent and did not proximately cause the occurrence in question. They found that the decedent was negligent and was solely responsible for the accident.