P.F. and Wife, J.F., as Next Friends of Their Daughter I.F. v. S.S., S.S, and S.S., 08-16-00134-CV

Background

On appeal from Denton County, Texas, plaintiffs Paul and Jaime Fletcher (as next friends of their daughter IF) challenge a summary-judgment order that dismissed IF’s negligence claims against Steven Strifler and his children SS and Sydney; the trial court granted the defendants’ traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment and severed IF’s claims.
Facts relied on by IF: Mr. Strifler left his teen children home alone; the teens hosted a party where other minors brought alcohol and drugs; IF (age 14) became intoxicated/incoherent and was sexually assaulted by two boys in the Strifler home/yard.
SS and Sydney exercised control over the house during the party (admitting they invited/allowed guests, opened doors, directed who could enter/leave, and supervised the gathering).
Evidence shows witnesses observed AV (one assailant) engaging in sexual acts with another girl, handling Xanax, and posting social-media content suggesting a disregard for consent; SS and Sydney allegedly saw escalating signs of danger (IF’s incoherence, AV’s conduct) before the assault.
Plaintiffs argue (1) the Dram Shop Act’s exclusive-remedy provisions do not bar common-law negligence claims here because defendants were not providers who sold/served alcohol that proximately caused IF’s injuries and (2) defendants owed common-law duties (created by voluntarily leaving teens unsupervised and by undertakings of supervision) and their negligence proximately caused foreseeable criminal acts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held (trial-court outcome / appellate posture)
Whether defendants are entitled to rely on the Dram Shop Act / social-host exclusivity to negate common-law duty	Fletcher: Act applies only to persons who sell/serve alcohol and only for harms proximately caused by that provision; defendants did not serve/sell alcohol and minors like IF retain common-law remedies	Strifler: invoked social-host / Dram Shop framework to defeat duty element	Trial court granted summary judgment (dismissing IF’s negligence claims); appellants argue that grant was erroneous and should be reversed
Whether defendants owed an independent common-law duty to control or avoid danger they created	Fletcher: defendants created/maintained a dangerous, adult-free environment, and voluntarily undertook supervision—so they had duty to act reasonably and remove dangerous persons	Strifler: deny legal duty beyond statutory social-host duties; argue they did not proximately cause the assault	Trial court dismissed claims for lack of duty; appellants contend disputed facts preclude summary judgment
Whether defendants’ acts were a proximate cause of IF’s injuries (intervening/superseding cause)	Fletcher: sexual assault was a foreseeable progression from the unsupervised, drug-/alcohol-fueled environment and defendants’ omissions; third-party criminal acts were not superseding	Strifler: attackers’ criminal conduct was an independent intervening superseding cause	Trial court concluded (by granting MSJ) that proximate cause lacking or eliminated; appellants argue genuine fact issues exist on foreseeability and causation
Whether plaintiffs under 18 are barred from common-law recovery by the Dram Shop Act	Fletcher: §2.03(c) preserves common-law causes for persons under 18; thus IF retains common-law claims	Strifler: relied on social-host/Dram Shop defenses generally	Trial court dismissed claims; appellants assert statutory text preserves minor’s common-law claims and summary judgment was improper

Key Cases Cited

Graff v. Beard, 858 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. 1993) (addresses imposition of common-law duty on social hosts and interaction with Dram Shop statutory scheme)
Reeder v. Daniel, 61 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. 2001) (discusses limits on recognizing social-host causes of action in light of Dram Shop amendments)
Doe v. Messina, 349 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff failed to show foreseeability of sexual assault from unsupervised party facts)
Dew v. Crown Derrick Erectors, Inc., 208 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. 2016) (explains superseding-cause analysis in proximate-cause context)
Nall v. Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2013) (notes limits on deciding social-host duty questions and treats statutory changes carefully)
Carter v. Abbyad, 299 S.W.3d 892 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (recognizes liability theories where defendants’ voluntary acts or undertakings expose others to risk)
Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. 1990) (framework for duty analysis balancing foreseeability, risk and social utility)
Smith v. O’Donnell, 288 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2009) (summary-judgment review standards for no-evidence and traditional motions)
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)