BAC of .26, drink-spiking allegations, and a membership waiver that only went halfway
Two country club members drank themselves into a golf-cart crash after a tournament, then turned around and sued for $10 million.
After a members' golf tournament at Wildflower Country Club in Bell County, Texas, on November 4, 2023, a married couple stayed for drinks at the club bar. By the end of the evening, the husband had a blood-alcohol content of .26. His wife registered .18. They drove a golf cart home and were injured.
The couple sued the club and its bartender, seeking more than $10 million in compensatory and exemplary damages. Their claims ran along two tracks: first, that the bar overserved them under the Texas Dram Shop Act, the state law that lets injured people recover from businesses that serve obviously intoxicated customers; and second, that the bartender "knowingly, recklessly, and intentionally" spiked their drinks with drugs beyond the husband's prescribed opiates. They alleged the club was vicariously liable for the bartender's conduct because it happened during his shift.
The club had a shorter answer. It pointed to a liability waiver in the couple's membership application.
That waiver sat in the first full paragraph near the top of page three in a three-page document - the only paragraph containing capitalized text in the entire agreement. It released the club and its employees from "any and all liabilities, injuries, losses, damages or claims arising from my or my family's use of the Club facilities, including any such claims caused by the Released Party's own negligence."
In a memorandum opinion filed October 16, 2026, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found the release was valid and enforceable. Under Texas law, a liability waiver must clear two hurdles to stand up: it has to be noticeable enough that a reasonable person would spot it, and it has to say plainly that the business is releasing itself from its own negligence. The court found this waiver did both.
The couple tried to argue their way around it. They questioned whether their membership was ever approved, whether the husband had authority to sign for his wife, and whether "club facilities" even included the bar. The appeals court rejected each point. A membership checklist showed an approved application with a join date and member number. The husband had certified on the form that he held a marriage license and was authorized to sign on his wife's behalf. And the waiver's broad wording - covering "dining and event rooms, recreational amenities and outdoor areas" - plainly took in a bar inside the clubhouse.
On the overservice claims, the court held the Dram Shop Act is the only route to sue an alcohol provider in Texas. It replaces any common-law negligence action. With the waiver blocking those statutory claims, the overservice case was finished.
But the drugging allegations were a different matter entirely.
The club's summary judgment motion had dealt only with the overservice claims. It never addressed the allegation that the bartender spiked the couple's drinks. The court found the trial court went too far by throwing out claims the motion never touched.
And there was a loose thread in the evidence. The husband's initial blood-analysis results came back presumptively positive for opiates and amphetamines, even though he reported taking only prescription opiates. A final analysis and a forensic nurse later found "no evidence of them being drugged," but the initial results were enough to keep the drugging claims alive.
The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the overservice claims and reversed and remanded the drugging allegations to the trial court for further proceedings.
For HR teams and membership organizations that rely on liability waivers, the practical lesson is plain: a well-drafted release can shut down negligence claims, but it will not shield an employer from allegations of intentional misconduct by staff.
The overservice claims were resolved; the drugging claims remain live and will proceed at trial. No final determination has been made on those allegations.
