Steak & Ale of Texas, Inc. v. Borneman
62 S.W.3d 898, 2001 WL 1548958 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Exemplary damages are not recoverable for a cause of action under the Texas Dram Shop Act because the statute provides an exclusive remedy and its language, authorizing recovery only for "damages suffered," is construed to mean compensatory damages, not punitive awards.
Facts:
- Nehemiah Franklin and Michael Nimon, both 20 years old, went to a Bennigan's restaurant operated by Steak & Ale of Texas, Inc.
- From approximately 7:00 p.m. until midnight, Bennigan's employees served them a large quantity of alcoholic beverages, including beer, Kamikazees, and Flaming Dr. Peppers, without asking for identification.
- Franklin and Nimon engaged in a drinking competition, becoming loud and boisterous.
- During their time at the restaurant, Franklin's stepfather observed them and commented that they were both "wasted."
- After leaving Bennigan's, Franklin drove a vehicle with Lea Borneman as a passenger.
- Immediately before crashing, Franklin admitted to another passenger that he was extremely intoxicated.
- Franklin lost control of the vehicle, resulting in a one-car accident that caused injuries to Lea Borneman.
- Franklin fled the scene of the accident on foot and was later found passed out in a nearby yard.
Procedural Posture:
- Lea Borneman sued Steak and Ale of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Bennigan’s in a Texas trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Borneman, awarding both compensatory and exemplary damages.
- Bennigan's (Appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Bennigan's based on an erroneous jury question.
- Borneman (Appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas (the state's highest court).
- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding the jury question error was a defect requiring a new trial, not a reason to render judgment. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to consider Bennigan’s other legal challenges.
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 the Texas Dram Shop Act, which provides the exclusive statutory cause of action for providing an alcoholic beverage to a person 18 years of age or older, permit the recovery of exemplary (punitive) damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gardner
No. The Texas Dram Shop Act does not permit the recovery of exemplary damages. The Act created a liability unknown to the common law and its provisions are mandatory and exclusive, stating it is 'in lieu of common law' duties. The statute's text allows recovery only for 'damages suffered,' which the court interprets to mean actual, compensatory damages intended to make the plaintiff whole, not punitive damages designed to punish the defendant. Furthermore, the Act's heightened liability standard—requiring proof that a patron was 'obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger'—so closely overlaps with the standard for gross negligence that allowing exemplary damages could constitute an impermissible double recovery. Finally, the purposes of punitive damages, punishment and deterrence, are already served by the Alcoholic Beverage Code's regulatory scheme, which can suspend or revoke a provider's liquor license for such violations.
Dissenting - Justice Livingston
Yes. Exemplary damages should be recoverable under the Dram Shop Act. The majority's reliance on the Act's silence is misplaced. The Texas statute governing exemplary damages, Chapter 41 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, applies to all causes of action unless they are specifically exempted, and dram shop actions are not listed as an exemption. Following the Texas Supreme Court's reasoning in other cases where general statutes were applied to the Dram Shop Act, the general availability of exemplary damages under Chapter 41 should extend to this cause of action. Denying exemplary damages undermines the public policy of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, which is to protect public safety, as the threat of punitive awards is a powerful deterrent against a provider's reckless conduct.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the significant precedent in Texas that punitive damages are unavailable in dram shop litigation. By strictly construing the Act's 'exclusive remedy' provision and the phrase 'damages suffered,' the court limits recovery to compensatory damages, shielding alcohol providers from potentially large punitive awards. This ruling clarifies the scope of liability for commercial establishments, reinforcing that the statute's high burden of proof is the trade-off for creating a cause of action where none existed at common law. The dissent highlights a competing method of statutory interpretation, arguing that specific statutes should be read in harmony with general, overarching legislative schemes like the one governing exemplary damages.
