Quick answer: Serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person in Texas can expose a business on three separate fronts at once. TABC can act against the license (a public safety violation). An injured third party can bring a civil dram shop claim under Alcoholic Beverage Code §2.02. And the individual who served can face a criminal charge under §101.63. Each runs under its own standard, decided by different people, and one does not resolve the others.
Three exposures from one act
A single decision to keep serving can open three doors. They are independent: a business can clear one and still face another.
| Exposure | Who pursues it | What it targets | Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative | TABC | The license or permit | Suspension or cancellation |
| Civil (Dram Shop, §2.02) | An injured third party | The business and its insurance | Money damages |
| Criminal (§101.63) | The State, through a prosecutor | The individual who served | Misdemeanor fine and possible jail |
The rest of this guide takes each in turn, then covers the Safe Harbor defense and the filing deadline that apply to the civil side.
The administrative exposure (TABC)
Serving or selling to an obviously intoxicated person is treated as a public safety violation. TABC’s authority to suspend or cancel a permit or license comes from §11.61 (permits) and §61.71 (licenses), and public safety violations are sanctioned under the schedule in 16 TAC §34.2, where each sanction other than cancellation can also carry an optional monetary penalty of $300 per day of suspension. This is the license-side consequence, separate from any lawsuit or criminal case.
The civil exposure: the Dram Shop Act (§2.02)
The civil route is the Texas Dram Shop Act, codified at Alcoholic Beverage Code §2.02. It lets a person injured by an intoxicated patron sue the establishment that served the alcohol, not just the drunk driver. Since the Act took effect in 1987, it has been the exclusive way to pursue a provider for damages tied to intoxication.
A provider is liable only if a claimant proves two things:
- At the time the alcohol was provided, it was apparent to the provider that the person was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others; and
- That intoxication was a proximate cause of the damages suffered.
Both elements are demanding, and the first is where most dram shop cases are won or lost.
What “obviously intoxicated” means after Raoger v. Myers (2025)
On April 11, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court decided Raoger Corporation v. Myers (No. 23-0662), a unanimous opinion that sharpened what the first element requires. A restaurant patron closed his tab, drove a friend home, and later caused a crash; a blood draw about three hours afterward showed a BAC of 0.139. The trial court granted summary judgment for the restaurant, finding no evidence the patron appeared intoxicated when served. The Court of Appeals reversed, then the Supreme Court reinstated the judgment for the restaurant.
The holding turns on timing and appearance. Liability depends on the customer’s appearance to the provider at the moment of service, not on how much the customer drank or what a later BAC measured. As the Court put it, the relevant inquiry is how the customer appeared to the dram shop when served, not whether the customer drank an amount that may make some people intoxicated. A high post-incident BAC, standing alone, is not enough; circumstantial evidence can support a claim, but it has to be linked to other evidence of the patron’s apparent condition at the time of service rather than stacked inference on inference. The Court described this statutory standard as more onerous than the older common-law rule.
The practical takeaway for an operator is narrower than it sounds: the legal question is what a server could actually observe at the point of service, which is exactly what contemporaneous records, staff observations, and service-refusal practices speak to.
The Safe Harbor defense (§106.14)
The Dram Shop Act includes a defense that can shield the business from the actions of an employee. Under §106.14(a), an employee’s conduct is not attributed to the employer if the employer required its employees to attend a commission-approved seller training program, the employee actually attended, and the employer did not directly or indirectly encourage the violation. The same provision covers service to a minor or to an intoxicated person. TABC’s administrative rules (§34.4) add further conditions on the license side; Safe Harbor does not erase the individual server’s exposure, and it depends on the training and policies actually being in place before the incident.
Damages and the two-year deadline
Dram shop recovery is compensatory. Texas courts have read the Act to bar punitive damages against providers, so claims cover losses such as medical costs, lost income, and related harm rather than punishment. A provider’s share is also subject to proportionate responsibility: a jury apportions fault between the provider and the patron, and the provider is generally liable only for its own percentage, though it can be jointly and severally liable for the full amount if it is found more than 50 percent responsible.
The filing deadline is short. A dram shop claim is subject to a two-year statute of limitations, generally measured from the date of the injury. Once that period passes, the claim is ordinarily barred regardless of its strength.
The criminal exposure (§101.63)
Separately, the person who served can face a criminal charge. Under §101.63, a person commits an offense by selling an alcoholic beverage to an intoxicated person with criminal negligence. A violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $100 to $500, jail of up to one year, or both. If the person was previously convicted under §101.63 or under §106.03 (sale to a minor), the fine range rises to $500 to $1,000, still with up to a year in jail. This is a different offense from selling to a minor, and it carries its own penalty range.
In practice
Picture a bartender who keeps serving a patron who is slurring and unsteady, and the patron later injures someone driving home. Three matters can open in parallel. TABC can pursue a public safety violation against the license. The injured person can file a dram shop suit under §2.02, where the case will turn on what the bartender could observe at the time of service, not the patron’s later BAC alone. And a prosecutor can charge the bartender under §101.63. If the business required and documented commission-approved server training, kept its policies current, and did not encourage the conduct, it may raise Safe Harbor on the license and civil sides, even though the individual server still answers the criminal charge.
FAQ
Can a bar be sued for a customer’s drunk driving in Texas?
Yes, under the Dram Shop Act (§2.02), if it was apparent at the time of service that the customer was obviously intoxicated to the point of presenting a clear danger, and that intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury.
Does a high blood alcohol level prove a dram shop case?
Not on its own. After Raoger Corporation v. Myers (2025), a later BAC must be linked to other evidence of how the patron actually appeared when served; the question is the customer’s apparent condition at the time of service.
Is overserving a crime in Texas?
Serving an intoxicated person with criminal negligence is an offense under §101.63, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $100 to $500 (or $500 to $1,000 with a prior conviction) and up to a year in jail.
How long does someone have to file a dram shop claim?
Generally two years from the date of the injury. After that, the claim is usually barred.
Current as of June 2026. This article is general educational information, not legal advice. Statutes, rules, and court decisions change; verify the current Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code and TABC rules, and consult a qualified Texas attorney about your specific situation.