Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 S.W.3d 491

Daniel v. Reeder

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) · decided 2000-04-06

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 2003

2 state decisions

Relies on Smith v. Merritt

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-04-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

RONALD L. WALKER, Chief Justice,

¶1dissenting.

¶2According to Smith v. Merritt, 940 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Tex.1997), the sole remedy available to one claiming damages resulting from the providing of an alcoholic beverage, by a commercial provider, is legislatively created and contained in Chapter 2 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code (TABC). Chapter 2 provides, “the exclusive cause of action for providing an alcoholic beverage to a person 18 years of age or older.” Tex. Axgo. Bev.Code Ann. § 2.03 (Vernon 1995).

¶3The present law in Texas provides liability “against commercial providers only.” Smith v. Merritt, 940 S.W.2d at 605. As yet, the Legislature nor our Texas Supreme Court has expanded the “commercial provider” concept to include our present fact situation (minor to minor), and I am most reluctant to pioneer that effort. I would affirm the trial court’s summary judgment in tato. Respectfully, I dissent.

/16/sw3d/491 · .json · Public domain