Supreme Court
Raoger Corp. v. Myers
- Case number: 23-0662
- Legal category: Procedure-Pretrial
- Subtype: Summary Judgment
- Set for oral argument: January 13, 2024
Case Summary
The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to create a fact issue about whether it was apparent to a restaurant that its patron was obviously intoxicated.
Nasar Khan went to dinner with Kelly Jones at Cadot Restaurant, where he consumed at least four alcoholic beverages. After driving Jones home, Khan rear-ended Barrie Myers. Khan went to the hospital, where he failed a field-sobriety test and had a 0.139 BAC several hours after the collision.
Myers sued Cadot under the Dram Shop Act, alleging that Cadot is liable because it served a patron who was obviously intoxicated. Cadot filed no-evidence and traditional motions for summary judgment, arguing that Khan did not show any visible signs of intoxication at Cadot. In support of its traditional motion, Cadot submitted deposition and affidavit testimony of several witnesses who interacted with Khan that night, including Jones, Cadot’s owner, and the officer who performed Khan’s field-sobriety test. Each testified that Khan showed no signs of intoxication. In response, Myers submitted the testimony of several witnesses who claimed that based on Khan’s BAC, he would have showed signs of intoxication at Cadot. Myers also submitted Khan’s own testimony that he was overserved and that Cadot should have observed that he was intoxicated. The trial court granted Cadot’s motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a fact issue exists about whether it was apparent to Cadot that Khan was obviously intoxicated.
Cadot filed a petition for review that challenges the court of appeals’ holding. The Court granted the petition.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.