Graff v. Beard
858 S.W.2d 918 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas common law, a social host who makes alcohol available to an intoxicated adult guest does not owe a legal duty to third parties who may be injured by the guest's negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
Facts:
- The Graffs and Hausmons hosted a party at their home.
- Houston Moos attended the party and consumed alcoholic beverages.
- Moos left the party in his vehicle, allegedly in an intoxicated state.
- While driving from the party, Moos's vehicle collided with a motorcycle operated by Brett Beard.
- Brett Beard sustained injuries as a result of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Brett Beard sued Houston Moos and the party hosts, the Graffs and Hausmons, in a Texas trial court.
- The trial court dismissed Beard's claims against the hosts for failure to state a cause of action.
- Beard, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The en banc court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that a cause of action for social host liability exists, and remanded the case for trial.
- The hosts, as petitioners, were granted a writ of review by the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a social host owe a common-law duty of care to third parties who are injured by an intoxicated adult guest to whom the host served alcohol?
Opinions:
Majority - Cornyn, Justice.
No. A social host does not owe a common-law duty to third parties for the acts of their intoxicated adult guests. The court reasoned that imposing such a duty involves complex public policy considerations best left to the legislature, which has already considered and rejected social host liability when enacting the dram shop statute for commercial providers. Unlike an employer's right to control an employee, a social host lacks the legal right to control the conduct of a guest. Furthermore, it is impractical to expect a host to accurately monitor a guest's intoxication level and difficult to define what actions a host must take to prevent an intoxicated guest from driving. The court concluded that the legal responsibility should remain on the imbiber, who has the ultimate control over their own consumption and actions.
Dissenting - Gammage, Justice.
Yes. A social host should owe a common-law duty to third parties injured by an intoxicated guest. The dissent argued that the rationale from 'El Chico Corp. v. Poole,' which recognized a common-law duty for commercial vendors based on the foreseeability of risk, applies with equal force to social hosts. The dissent likened serving an intoxicated person who will drive to 'setting loose a live rattlesnake' on the public, a danger that is equally foreseeable whether the provider is a bar or a social host. Public policy considerations of protecting the public from drunk drivers should outweigh any burden on the host, who controls the serving of alcohol and is in a position to prevent the harm.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes in Texas jurisprudence that there is no common-law liability for social hosts who provide alcohol to adult guests. It creates a clear demarcation between commercial vendors, who are governed by statutory 'dram shop' laws, and private individuals, who are insulated from liability. The ruling emphasizes judicial deference to legislative policy-making in this area and places the full legal responsibility for drunk driving on the driver. This precedent makes it exceptionally difficult for third parties injured by intoxicated adults to recover damages from anyone other than the driver in a social context.
Unlock the full brief for Graff v. Beard