Robbin Skaggs, Individually, and as the Representative on Behalf of the Estate of Samantha Skaggs, and Walter Skaggs, Sr. v. 4907 Corporation

Texas Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth · June 5, 2025 · No. 02-24-00382-CV

Summary

This memorandum opinion from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses a trial court's grant of a Rule 91a motion to dismiss in a wrongful death action involving the Texas Dram Shop Act. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the Dram Shop Act claims because the movant expressly excluded them from the motion, but affirmed the dismissal of punitive damages claims based on controlling precedent. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the Dram Shop Act claims and for reconsideration of attorney fees.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth
Writing for the Court
Bonnie Sudderth; Kerr; Walker
Jurisdiction
Texas
Decision date
June 5, 2025
Docket number
02-24-00382-CV
Procedural posture
Appeal from the 67th Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
Robbin Skaggs, Individually, and as the Representative on Behalf of the Estate of Samantha Skaggs, and Walter Skaggs, Sr. v. 4907 Corporation
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

appellate procedurecivil proceduremotions to dismissattorney fees

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate proceduretorts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred in granting the corporation’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss all claims, including the Dram Shop Act causes of action
  2. Whether the trial court erred in granting the corporation’s award of attorney’s fees

Holdings

  1. The trial court erred; the Dram Shop Act causes of action must be remanded for further proceedings
  2. The trial court correctly dismissed the punitive damages claims
  3. The award of attorney’s fees is remanded for further consideration

Key quotations

The motion either implicitly or explicitly excluded the Dram Shop Act claims in three ways. First, the Corporation began its motion not by seeking dismissal of all of Appellants’ causes of action but by seeking dismissal only of “certain claims” brought against it. (5)
None of these four theories of liability—alter ego, joint enterprise, vicarious liability, and respondeat superior—are standalone causes of action; they are merely theories under which a party may be held responsible for the wrongful conduct of another party. (5)

Factual background

Samantha Skaggs was killed after being overserved at a bar and crashing her car into a jackknifed 18-wheeler. The appellants sued 4907 Corporation under various theories, including the Texas Dram Shop Act. The corporation filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, expressly excluding Dram Shop Act claims, and the trial court dismissed all claims.

Procedural history

The trial court dismissed all of the appellants' claims against the corporation, including Dram Shop Act claims, punitive damages, and awarded attorney's fees to the corporation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of punitive damages and the award of fees, but reversed and remanded the dismissal of the Dram Shop Act causes of action.

Remand instructions

Remand for further proceedings on the Dram Shop Act causes of action and for reconsideration of costs and reasonable attorney fees, if any, to the corporation.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…