Andrew Woodward v. Corner West, LLC d/b/a The Dogwood

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed summary judgment for Corner West, LLC d/b/a The Dogwood in Andrew Woodward’s Texas Dram Shop Act action arising from an intoxicated-driver collision. The court held that Woodward presented no competent evidence that Laris was obviously intoxicated to the extent he posed a clear danger when Dogwood served him alcohol, and therefore did not reach the challenges to the traditional summary-judgment ruling.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Woodward's special exceptions because Dogwood's combined motion, considered collectively, gave reasonable notice of the grounds for summary judgment, and Woodward failed to show injury from the denial.
2. Woodward did not establish reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings because he did not show that any alleged evidentiary error probably caused rendition of an improper judgment.
3. Dogwood's no-evidence summary-judgment motion satisfied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) because it clearly identified the challenged Dram Shop Act elements and the Safe Harbor Defense element.
4. The trial court properly granted no-evidence summary judgment because Woodward failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence that, at the time Dogwood served Laris, it was apparent to Dogwood that Laris was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others.
5. The court did not reach the merits of Dogwood's traditional summary-judgment motion after affirming the no-evidence summary judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Woodward's special exceptions to Dogwood's no-evidence summary-judgment motion.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in its challenged evidentiary rulings concerning Laris's discovery responses, Woodward's medical records, and Dogwood's affidavit.
3. Whether Dogwood's no-evidence summary-judgment motion was sufficiently specific under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i).
4. Whether Woodward produced more than a scintilla of evidence that, when Dogwood served Laris, it was apparent to Dogwood that Laris was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others.
5. Whether the trial court properly granted Dogwood's traditional summary-judgment motion.

Disposition

affirmed