20801, INC. v. Parker
2008 Tex. LEXIS 227, 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 668, 249 S.W.3d 392 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Texas Dram Shop Act's 'safe harbor' provision, an employer-provider bears the burden of proving its employees attended required training. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove the employer directly or indirectly encouraged the over-service, which can be established by showing the employer acted negligently.
Facts:
- John L. Parker attended the grand opening of a Slick Willie’s Family Pool Hall, operated by 20801, Inc.
- Over the course of the evening, Slick Willie's employees served Parker between ten and fifteen free alcoholic beverages.
- The manager, Craig Watson, personally gave Parker two of the free drinks.
- Parker became involved in an argument with another patron, Anthony Griffin.
- After being asked to leave by Watson, Parker was punched by Griffin in the parking lot.
- Parker fell, struck his head on the pavement, and suffered a fractured skull and serious brain injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- John L. Parker sued 20801, Inc. (Slick Willie's) in a Texas trial court under a premises liability theory and the Texas Dram Shop Act.
- Slick Willie's filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the safe harbor provision of the Dram Shop Act as a defense.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Slick Willie's.
- Parker, as appellant, appealed to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial court's judgment in part, holding that Slick Willie's (appellee at this stage) did not establish the third element of the safe harbor defense.
- Slick Willie's, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court for civil matters, which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Texas Dram Shop Act's safe harbor provision, does the burden shift to the plaintiff to prove the employer encouraged an employee to over-serve a patron, and can 'encouragement' be established by evidence of the employer's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Jefferson
Yes. A plaintiff bears the burden of proving the employer directly or indirectly encouraged the employee to violate the law, and such encouragement can be demonstrated by evidence of the provider's negligence. The court reasoned that requiring an employer to prove a negative—that it in no way encouraged an employee—would be inefficient and nearly impossible. Therefore, once the provider establishes the first two elements of the safe harbor (requiring and attending training), the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove the third element: encouragement. Regarding the standard for 'encouragement,' the court rejected a higher 'knowing' or 'conscious indifference' standard, holding that negligence is sufficient. This objective standard, which compares the provider's actions to those of a reasonable provider under similar circumstances, best balances the legislative intent to both shelter responsible providers and prevent abuse of that shelter. For example, a provider could negligently encourage over-service by modeling inappropriate behavior, failing to punish employees for over-service, or setting excessively high minimum sales quotas.
Analysis:
This case provides the first definitive interpretation of the Texas Dram Shop Act's unique 'safe harbor' provision. By allocating the burden of proving 'encouragement' to the plaintiff, the decision makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to overcome the safe harbor defense. However, by establishing that 'encouragement' can be proven by mere negligence rather than a higher intentional standard, the court preserves a meaningful path for holding providers accountable for irresponsible practices. The ruling creates a clear, predictable framework for litigating these claims and incentivizes providers to not only train employees but also to avoid management practices that could be construed as negligently encouraging over-service.
