Chapter 2 — Statutory Framework

The Texas Dram Shop Act is codified in Chapter 2 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code. Enacted in 1987 after El Chico v. Poole, it both created a statutory cause of action and limited the scope of liability.

Texas Dram Shop Act — Full Statutory Text

Sec. 2.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Provider” means a person who sells or serves an alcoholic beverage under authority of a license or permit issued under the terms of this code or who otherwise sells an alcoholic beverage to an individual.
(2) “Provision” includes, but is not limited to, the sale or service of an alcoholic beverage. Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 303, Sec. 3, eff. June 11, 1987.

Sec. 2.02. CAUSES OF ACTION.
(a) This chapter does not affect the right of any person to bring a common law cause of action against any individual whose consumption of an alcoholic beverage allegedly resulted in causing the person bringing the suit to suffer personal injury or property damage.
(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.
(c) An adult 21 years of age or older is liable for damages proximately caused by the intoxication of a minor under the age of 18 if:
(1) the adult is not:
(A) the minor’s parent, guardian, or spouse; or
(B) an adult in whose custody the minor has been committed by a court; and
(2) the adult knowingly:
(A) served or provided to the minor any of the alcoholic beverages that contributed to the minor’s intoxication; or
(B) allowed the minor to be served or provided any of the alcoholic beverages that contributed to the minor’s intoxication on the premises owned or leased by the adult.

Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 303, Sec. 3, eff. June 11, 1987. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 643 (H.B. 2868), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.

Sec. 2.03. EXCLUSIVITY OF STATUTORY REMEDY.
(a) The liability of providers under this chapter for the actions of their employees, customers, members, or guests who are or become intoxicated is in lieu of common law or other statutory law warranties and duties of providers of alcoholic beverages.
(b) This chapter does not impose obligations on a provider of alcoholic beverages other than those expressly stated in this chapter.
(c) This chapter provides the exclusive cause of action for providing an alcoholic beverage to a person 18 years of age or older.

Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 303, Sec. 3, eff. June 11, 1987. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 456, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Commentary on the Dram Shop Act

  1. Provider Definition. The Act limits liability to “providers,” meaning permit holders or sellers under § 2.01. Owners, officers, landlords, or employees are not automatically providers. See Chapter 8 for detailed analysis.
  2. Obvious Intoxication. Plaintiffs must prove intoxication was apparent at the time of service. Post-accident BAC evidence alone is insufficient. The Texas Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Raoger Corporation v. Myers definitively held that blood alcohol calculations and expert extrapolation cannot establish the statutory requirement without direct observational evidence of the patron’s condition when served.
  3. Proximate Cause. There must be a causal nexus between intoxication and injury. Alternative causes (weather, mechanical failure, third-party acts) can defeat proximate cause.
  4. Minors. § 2.02(c) creates liability for adults who knowingly provide or allow service to minors under 18, even outside a commercial context.
  5. Exclusivity. § 2.03 makes the Dram Shop Act the exclusive civil remedy for claims against providers. Negligence, negligent undertaking, and premises liability claims are preempted. Borneman v. Steak & Ale of Texas, Inc., 22 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. 2000).

Related Statute: Safe Harbor (§ 106.14)

Text (excerpt): An employee’s actions “shall not be attributable to the employer if (1) the employer requires TABC training, (2) the employee attended, and (3) the employer has not directly or indirectly encouraged the violation.”

Cross-Reference: See Chapter 9 for complete discussion. Safe Harbor is a complete defense for trained providers who do not encourage violations.