Venetoulias v. O'BRIEN
909 S.W.2d 236, 1995 WL 590073 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An establishment can be held liable under the Texas Dram Shop Act for serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated patron who subsequently injures herself, and an individual can be held liable for personal negligence if they voluntarily undertake a duty to ensure the patron's safe transport but then create a dangerous situation for the intoxicated patron, provided the patron's own negligence is not greater than 50%.
Facts:
- Tressie O’Brien went to Hullabaloo, a country and western nightclub owned by Hellenic Investments, Inc., after consuming about half a beer at a pool hall.
- Konstantinos Venetoulias, the president and owner of Hellenic, approached O’Brien and invited her to join him and his friends at the bar.
- O’Brien initially declined a drink, stating she was alone and driving, but accepted after Venetoulias assured her that he, a friend, or a cab would take her home.
- O’Brien gave Venetoulias her keys, license, and money because he asked for them to ensure she would not attempt to drive home.
- Over the next four hours, Hullabaloo bartenders served O’Brien approximately fifteen drinks, an amount she described as “six to eight times” more alcohol than she had consumed on any previous occasion.
- Around midnight, an off-duty police officer, who was familiar with O'Brien, observed her and concluded she was “probably legally intoxicated,” yet Hullabaloo bartenders continued to serve her for two more hours until the club closed at 2:00 a.m.
- As O’Brien left the club, Venetoulias had to “support” her by putting his arm around her due to her extreme intoxication.
- Venetoulias took O’Brien to her car, put her inside, placed her keys in the ignition, returned her money and driver’s license, and then left in his own car.
- O’Brien subsequently attempted to drive home and was involved in a one-car accident, sustaining injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Tressie O'Brien sued Konstantinos Venetoulias and Hellenic Investments, Inc. in a trial court.
- The trial court found Hellenic liable under the Texas Dram Shop Act and Venetoulias liable for negligence.
- The trial court found O'Brien, Hellenic, and Venetoulias each one-third negligent for O'Brien's injuries, awarding O'Brien approximately $57,500 in actual and punitive damages.
- Konstantinos Venetoulias and Hellenic Investments, Inc. (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals.
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 allow an intoxicated patron to recover for her own injuries against a bar that served her while she was obviously intoxicated, and can the bar's owner be held personally liable for negligence when he promised to arrange safe transport but then facilitated her driving while drunk, provided the patron's own negligence is not greater than 50%?
Opinions:
Majority - Lee, Justice
Yes, the trial court correctly found Hellenic liable under the Dram Shop Act and Venetoulias liable for negligence. The evidence was factually sufficient to support the findings that Hullabaloo served O'Brien when she was obviously intoxicated, presenting a clear danger to herself, and that Venetoulias negligently created a dangerous situation. The court found that O’Brien’s responsibility was not greater than 50%. Hullabaloo bartenders continued to serve O'Brien for two hours after an off-duty police officer observed her as "probably legally drunk," which was sufficient evidence that she was "obviously intoxicated" as required by the Dram Shop Act. The court found that Hellenic's conduct was a proximate cause of O'Brien’s injuries, reasoning that her driving while intoxicated was foreseeable, especially since Venetoulias, the club's president and owner, placed her in her vehicle with keys while she was obviously intoxicated. Regarding Venetoulias, the court held that he voluntarily undertook a duty to ensure O’Brien’s safe transport home when she initially declined to drink due to driving, and then accepted after his assurances. He negligently breached this duty by placing a highly intoxicated O'Brien into her car with the keys in the ignition, thereby creating a dangerous situation. O'Brien's subsequent driving and injuries were a foreseeable result of Venetoulias's actions, and her driving was not an intervening cause that excused his negligence. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Concurring - Edelman, Justice
I agree with the majority's correct disposition of the case under current law. However, I believe this case highlights an inequity in our law of comparative responsibility, specifically concerning punitive damages. When both the defendant and the plaintiff are grossly negligent, an award of punitive damages punishes the defendant's gross negligence but, in effect, rewards that of the plaintiff. This could be remedied by formally considering evidence of a plaintiff's gross negligence when awarding and reviewing punitive damages.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the Texas Dram Shop Act for first-party claims (where the injured intoxicated person sues the provider), emphasizing that recovery is possible if the patron's responsibility is 50% or less and they were served while obviously intoxicated. It also reinforces the common law principle of voluntary undertaking of duty, establishing that an individual who promises to ensure safety, then facilitates intoxication, and subsequently places the intoxicated person in a dangerous situation, can be held liable for resulting injuries. The case underscores the importance of foreseeability as a key component of proximate cause in both statutory and common law negligence claims, indicating that actions leading to foreseeable drunk driving do not constitute an intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation.
