Supreme Court of Texas Blog

No. 12-1013
Click for Official Page

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION v. CHRISTOPHER ARTHEY AND DENISE ARTHEY

Oral argument was held on January 8, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on June 20, 2014. File Closed

In the news...

Tracking 2 articles about this case.

June 20, 2014

Eight sets of opinions, one grant [Jun. 20, 2014]

from SCOTXblog

This article also mentions 10 other cases.

The Court has issued opinions:

December 10, 2013

Seven cases granted for argument in January 2014

from SCOTXblog

This article also mentions 6 other cases.

Opinion

June 20, 2014

Hecht
Johnson
Willett
Guzman
Lehrmann
Boyd
Devine
Brown

Chief Justice Hecht delivered the opinion of the Court. PDF

 

Court of Appeals

Appellate District:13th Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Reverse & Remand
COA Docket No.:13-11-00392-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable Dori Contreras Garza

Trial Court

Trial Court:267th District Court
County:Refugio
Trial Judge:Honorable Juergen Skipper Koetter
Trial Docket:2008-10-10823

Entries on SCOTX Orders Lists

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2014-11-20 Notice received  
2014-09-26 Letter Filed  
2014-08-07 Case Stored  
2014-08-01 Mandate issued  
2014-06-20 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment reversed & judgment rendered
2014-06-20 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
  This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between January 8, 2014 and June 20, 2014.  
2014-01-08 Oral argument  
2013-12-30 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
2013-12-27 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
2013-12-13 Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received  
2013-12-13 Phone call from Clerk's Office  
2013-11-22 Petition for Review disposed Filing granted
2013-11-22 Petition for Review granted
2013-11-22 Case set for oral argument   Case set for oral argument
2013-10-17 Reply Brief (Petitioner)  
2013-09-20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2013-09-20 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2013-09-11 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
2013-07-31 Motion for Extension of Time disposed.   Filing granted
2013-07-31 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed  
2013-07-22 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
2013-07-03 Case Record Filed  
2013-06-24 Record Requested in Petition for Review
2013-06-21 Brief on the Merits Requested  
2013-06-04 Reply to Response (Petitioner)  
2013-05-28 Response to Petition (Respondent)  
2013-04-25 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed   Filing granted
2013-04-24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response  
2013-03-29 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
2013-02-26 Case forwarded to Court
2013-02-22 Response Waiver filed  
2013-01-23 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  
2012-12-21 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed   Filing granted
2012-12-21 Phone call from Clerk's Office  
2012-12-17 Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed  

Parties

Party Counsel Role
Schlumberger, Ltd.
Mr. David W. Green
Mr. Michael G. Terry
Petitioner
Arthey, Christopher
Mr. James Hans Barcus
Mr. Lanny D. Ray
Respondent
 
 

Does Texas law or federal maritime law govern social host liability for a drunk driver?

The first paragraph sums this unusual case up:

Under Texas law, a social host has no duty to prevent someone from drinking and driving. But in this case, the driver became intoxicated on a small, chartered fishing boat during a business retreat, and plaintiffs contend that their action against the host is governed by federal maritime law, which, they argue, would recognize liability. For maritime law to apply, the action must fall within admiralty jurisdiction, and under the tests prescribed by the United States Supreme Court in Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., it does not.

The Court examined whether the activity in question (drinking by guests on a small fishing boat) "posed [no] more than a fanciful risk to commercial shipping." Nor did the Court view this as a traditional maritime activity that warrants the uniformity of a federal maritime law to avoid inconsistent state laws. Instead, it suggested, applying maritime law here might have the opposite effect by drawing "a distinction between [proper social host culpability for] business retreats at hunting lodges and those at fishing lodges when in fact there is none."

...
...