result image We’re ranked the BEST for one simple reason. We treat our clients fairly, because we CARE.
result image

Recent Results

$5,545,000.00 Wrongful Death / Truck Accident Attorney Fees: $2,180,000 Litigation Expenses: $100,000
result image

Recent Results

$2,500,000.00 Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident Attorney Fees: $833,333 Litigation Expenses: $166,667
result image

Recent Results

$7,500,000.00 Wrongful Death / Truck Accident Attorney Fees: $3,000,000 Litigation Expenses: $320,000
result imageresult image
Michael Headshot

What Does Texas Law Say About Obvious Intoxication?

Under the Texas Dram Shop, alcohol providers are not liable for alcohol-related deaths and injuries just because they served alcohol. The Texas Dram Shop Act, the law which gives drunk driving accident victims the right to sue bars, clearly states that bars are not normally liable for intoxicated related incidents. Rather, it states that bars are only liable when they serve an obviously intoxicated patron who is intoxicated to such an extent that they represent a clear and present danger to themselves or others,

This leads us to an important question. If a bar is liable only when they serve an obviously intoxicate customer, what exactly does “obvious intoxication” mean?

In this article, we’ll discuss how the term obvious intoxication has been interpreted by the court over the years and how it applies to a drunk driving lawsuit. Be sure to also check out our Comprehensive Guide to Texas Liquor Liability Law as well.


Questions answered on this page:

  • How is obvious intoxication defined in court?
  • What evidence is needed to prove obvious intoxication in a dram shop case?
  • Are bars always liable for serving someone to the point of intoxication?

How Texas Courts Interpret “Obvious Intoxication.”

Under the Texas Dram Shop Act, a provision of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code:

Sec. 2.02. CAUSES OF ACTION.

  • (b) Providing, selling, or serving an alcoholic beverage may be made the basis of a statutory cause of action under this chapter and may be made the basis of a revocation proceeding under Section 6.01(b) of this code upon proof that:
    • (1) at the time the provision occurred it was apparent to the provider that the individual being sold, served, or provided with an alcoholic beverage was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others; and
    • (2) the intoxication of the recipient of the alcoholic beverage was a proximate cause of the damages suffered.

What this means:

  1. Obviously intoxicated to the extent he presented a clear danger to himself and others. The person who received the alcohol must have been more than a little tipsy, but must have been so impaired that it would be apparent to any reasonable person that they were. Note the qualifying clause that the drinker was so intoxicated that he presented a “clear danger.” This is the nut of these claims—did a bar act in disregard of public safety? Did the bar know that the person wasn’t just “having a good time,” but posed a threat to others? This is obviously a fact-intensive inquiry.
  2. At the time the provision occurred. It’s not enough to show that a bar or restaurant gave someone alcohol AND show that an accident happened, but that they gave a person alcohol when the person was already drunk.

Over the years, the courts have interpreted the main point of contention in a dram shop case (the obviousness of the drinker’s intoxication) rather broadly. Essentially, intoxication is obvious is there are any signs that a reasonably prudent bar tender should have been able to pick up on. So, whether or not someone is obviously intoxicated can be established by outward physical manifestations, such as the drinker slurring their speech, acting overly sexual, stumbling and falling, having trouble staying awake, etc., or intoxication can be obvious based on inferences. For instance, if a server knows that giving a 150 lb woman 6 drinks in an hour is enough to make them incredibly drunk, providing a seventh would definitely imply that they knowingly served someone who was obviously intoxicated; the obviousness of their intoxication is based on the server’s knowledge, in that instance.

All that to say, any reasonable information that would indicate that a customer is intoxication counts toward obvious intoxication.

Proving “Obvious Intoxication” In Court

Proving obvious intoxication is a mixture of science, legal analysis, and painstaking litigation. We’ve succeeded at more of these cases than any other firm we know of in Texas, and we can count the times the bar has owned up to selling alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person on exactly zero hands. Since bars never admit that they did something wrong, the burden, indeed, is on the victims to prove obvious intoxication, so how do we do it?

  • Direct evidence of obvious intoxication.
    • Testimony from witnesses about the drinker’s change in personality and behavior. This could be progressively louder speech, inappropriate behavior (obnoxious and unwanted sexual advances, taunting others with insults or racial slurs), or violence. It could also be testimony that the patron was stumbling, crying, slurring of speech, and even admissions of intoxication to others.
    • Video evidence of drunken behavior. Many bars and restaurants have security cameras in the bar area. We’ve had many cases where the patron can be seen on footage fumbling about, knocking over drinks, and starting fights.
    • The amount of alcohol served to the patron. If it can be shown through bar receipts and credit card statements that the recipient, say, opened a tab, ordered 7 drinks, and closed his tab an hour later, that would tend to show he was obviously intoxicated when served his last few drinks.
    • Blood alcohol levels. After a serious or deadly accident, blood is usually drawn in an autopsy or because a judge issued a warrant. A toxicologist can then extrapolate what the patron’s blood alcohol level likely was at the time of final service of alcohol.
  • Indirect evidence of obvious intoxication.
    • Post-accident testimony. If a car accident happened and the investigating police officer could tell the driver was obviously intoxicated, that tends to support a claim that the driver was thoroughly drunk when served his last drink.
    • Clues about the accident. If a drunk person crashes into a wall before even making it out of the parking lot, that’s a pretty good indirect sign that they would have ben obviously intoxicated at the time they were last served.
3rd-Party Investigations How you can gather info and evidence that the police don't bother to collect...Read More >

Every case we’ve litigated is different, and there’s always some combination of the above. But let us make one thing clear: these cases do NOT require an admission from the bar that they knew a patron was a danger to himself and others, but served additional alcohol anyhow. Instead, proving obvious intoxication requires a lot of work in digging through the facts and piecing the story together.

Only a thorough attorney can prove your case to a jury.

We can’t physically go back in time and observe the drinker. Instead, your attorney must make a compelling case based on every attainable fact that the drinker was over-served. That takes years of experience. If you’ve been hurt or lost a loved one in an alcohol-related incident, call our experienced drunk driving accident attorneys at Grossman Law Offices, based in Dallas, TX, at (855) 326-0000 for a consultation.


Related Articles for Further Reading:

Do you have a legal question? Enter your phone number in the boxes below and we will call you immediately.
- -
Call us anytime toll Free 1-855-326-0000
Attorney Michael Grossman is here to help. Get In Touch. Attorney Michael Grossman is here to help. I'm here to help.
Do you have a legal question? Enter your phone number in the boxes below and we will call you immediately.
- -
Call us anytime toll Free 1-855-326-0000