Chapter 16 — Appeals and Preservation of Error

Appeals in dram shop litigation require meticulous error preservation during trial. The Texas Dram Shop Act (Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ch. 2 § 2.01 et seq.) imposes specific statutory elements, and the 2025 Raoger decision has added new layers of evidentiary requirements that must be preserved for appellate review.

Preservation of Error Checklist Enhanced

1. Essential Motions Enhanced

  • Move for Directed Verdict on Non-Provider Defendants: Only statutory “providers” can be held liable under the Dram Shop Act.
  • Move for Directed Verdict on Raoger Grounds: If plaintiff lacks direct observational evidence of obvious intoxication at service, seek directed verdict based on Supreme Court authority.
  • Move for Directed Verdict if No Evidence of Obvious Intoxication at Service: Enhanced post-Raoger to require specific observational evidence, not circumstantial proof.

Expert Testimony Preservation Enhanced:

  • File Robinson/Daubert/Raoger Challenges: Object to expert testimony that violates Supreme Court standards requiring observational foundation.
  • Preserve Raoger Objections: Document all attempts by plaintiff to use circumstantial evidence without observational anchors.
  • Challenge Retrograde Extrapolation: Preserve objections to expert testimony based solely on BAC calculations.

Jury Charge Preservation Enhanced:

  • Object to Improper Obvious Intoxication Instructions: Demand jury charge requiring direct observational evidence under Raoger.
  • Request Raoger-Compliant Definitions: Preserve objections to charges allowing circumstantial evidence alone.
  • Track Enhanced Statutory Language: Ensure jury instructions incorporate current Supreme Court interpretations.

Standards of Review Enhanced

3. Evidence Sufficiency Under Raoger

  • Legal Sufficiency Enhanced: De novo review of whether evidence meets Raoger‘s requirement for direct observational proof
  • Factual Sufficiency Modified: Whether observational evidence, even if present, supports jury findings under heightened standards
  • Expert Testimony Reliability: Abuse of discretion review of Daubert/Robinson decisions involving Raoger compliance

Practice Note: The Raoger decision provides powerful new appellate arguments for defense counsel. Courts must strictly enforce the requirement for direct observational evidence, and any deviation from Supreme Court guidance creates reversible error. Anchoring appellate arguments to Raoger‘s specific holdings maximizes chances of success on appeal.