MEGEE v. EL PATIO, 524 P.3d 1283

David MeGee consumed alcohol at El Patio (allegedly 12 beers and 5 tequila shots over ~7 hours) and left to drive to Oklahoma City after employees bet him $200 to make the trip.
MeGee reached 97 mph, crashed into a tractor-trailer, was ejected, and died at the scene.
Personal Representative (MeGee’s mother, as estate rep) sued El Patio, LLC and employee Dylan Welch for negligent/intentional overservice and for betting/incentivizing MeGee to drive while intoxicated.
Welch later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for knowingly selling alcohol to an intoxicated person.
The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6) for failure to state a claim; the estate appealed and the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal.
The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, reaffirming that (1) dram shop liability does not extend to voluntarily intoxicated adults for injuries they cause themselves, and (2) a bettor who induces an intoxicated adult to drive is not liable to that intoxicated adult for injuries the adult sustains as a result of his own intoxication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dram shop liability extends to a voluntarily intoxicated adult who injures or kills himself after being over-served	MeGee: El Patio should be liable for overserving because employees knowingly served a noticeably intoxicated adult and that conduct caused his death	El Patio: Oklahoma precedent bars recovery by a voluntarily intoxicated adult; dram shop protects third parties, not the drinker	Court reaffirmed Ohio Casualty: no cause of action for voluntarily intoxicated adult against commercial vendor
Whether an intoxicated adult who accepts a bet to drive may sue the bettor for injuries he suffers as a result of his intoxication	MeGee: Betting an intoxicated person to drive is an independent, actionable negligent act; $200 inducement made the bet coercive given decedent’s need	Defendants: No statutory duty, negligent betting is not a cognizable theory; any duty to prevent driving is owed to third parties, not the intoxicated driver	Court held there is no common-law duty to protect a voluntarily intoxicated adult from injuring himself; bettor not liable to the intoxicated adult

Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc., 725 P.2d 300 (Okla. 1986) (recognized dram shop liability to third-party victims of intoxicated drivers)
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Todd, 813 P.2d 508 (Okla. 1991) (held vendor not liable to voluntarily intoxicated adult who injures himself; dram shop duty protects third parties)
Busby v. Quail Creek Golf & Country Club, 885 P.2d 1326 (Okla. 1994) (distinguishes minors: intoxicated minors may have vendor-based claims)
Fox v. Mize, 428 P.3d 314 (Okla. 2018) (discusses imputation/respondeat superior principles relevant to server conduct being imputed to employer)