Odessa Dram Shop Wrongful Death: When a Bar Serves a Teenager Until He Kills Someone
If you are reading this page, someone you love may have been killed by a drunk driver in Odessa, and you may have just learned that a bar or restaurant kept serving that driver alcohol even after he was visibly intoxicated — or even after he was underage. You are in the right place. This page explains exactly how Texas dram shop law works, what evidence is already disappearing, what your family can recover, and why the speed of the first few weeks can decide whether the case is built on proof or built on smoke.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We handle wrongful death, dram shop, and catastrophic injury cases across Texas, including Ector County and the Permian Basin. This page is written for one person: the spouse, parent, or child of someone killed by a drunk driver in Odessa who is sitting at a kitchen table at 2 a.m., staring at a phone, trying to understand what just happened to their family and what to do next.
Everything written here is legal information, not legal advice. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But every fact, every deadline, every rule on this page is real — and every one of them is something the insurance company hopes you do not read in time.
The Criminal Case: Charges Against Contreras and Trevino
The criminal justice system moved. Jose Contreras was indicted on January 15, 2025, on a charge of collision involving death, and on January 28, 2025, on a charge of intoxication manslaughter. Both are second-degree felonies under the Texas Penal Code, carrying potential sentences of 2 to 20 years.
But then something important happened. An Ector County grand jury upgraded the charges against Nadia Trevino, 24 — the adult who was with Contreras that night. Trevino is now facing the second-degree felony charge of intoxication manslaughter in Bingham’s death, in addition to a state jail felony for furnishing alcohol to a minor. She is being held in the Ector County jail on a $75,000 surety bond.
The indictment states she “solicited, encouraged, directed, aided or attempted to aid Jose Contreras to operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and by reason of such intoxication of Jose Contreras” caused Bingham’s death.
That language matters. It means a grand jury of Ector County citizens found enough evidence that Trevino did not just happen to be in the passenger seat — she actively helped put an intoxicated teenager behind the wheel of a car. And the furnishing-alcohol-to-a-minor charge means the grand jury found evidence she personally provided alcohol to someone under 21.
Judge Justin Low recently increased Jose Contreras’ bond from $100,000 to $500,000 at the request of prosecutors after he was arrested in Midland on suspicion of reckless driving. However, the Midland County District Attorney’s Office opted against charging Contreras on that separate Midland incident — meaning the bond increase stands on the Odessa charges, but the Midland arrest produced no new criminal filing.
The criminal proceedings against both Contreras and Trevino are a powerful liability engine for the civil case. The intoxication manslaughter indictments, the hit-and-run flight from the scene, and Trevino’s furnishing-alcohol-to-a-minor charge all create admissions and findings that can be leveraged in the civil action through requests for admission and, where applicable, collateral estoppel. A guilty plea or conviction in the criminal case would dramatically strengthen settlement leverage in the civil case — which is why mediation should be calendared after key discovery is produced but before the criminal cases resolve, so the civil case can capture the maximum benefit of criminal findings without waiting for a sentencing that could be a year or more away.
Texas Dram Shop Law: What TABC Chapter 2 Requires
Texas has a dram shop statute. It is not a general “everyone who serves a drink is liable” rule — Texas is not one of those states. The legislature built a specific, demanding standard that requires proof of two things: obvious intoxication and proximate cause.
The governing principle, from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code:
A provider is liable when they serve an obviously intoxicated person who presents a clear and present danger to themselves or others, and that service is a proximate cause of the resulting injuries.
In plain English, here is what that means for the Twist Off Saloon case:
“Obviously intoxicated” does not mean “had a few drinks.” It means the patron’s intoxication was visible, apparent, and apparent enough that a trained server should have recognized it — slurred speech, difficulty standing, impaired coordination, bloodshot eyes, loud or aggressive behavior. The standard is objective: would a reasonable server, looking at this patron, have recognized that he was intoxicated? If the answer is yes, the first element is met.
“Clear and present danger to self or others” means the patron’s level of intoxication was severe enough that he posed a foreseeable risk. When an obviously intoxicated person is about to get behind the wheel of a car, that is the textbook definition of a clear and present danger. The bar does not get to say “we did not know he was driving” when it watched him walk to the parking lot.
“Proximate cause” means the over-service was a substantial factor in causing the harm. The chain runs: the bar served the obviously intoxicated patron → the patron became more intoxicated → the patron drove → the patron’s intoxication caused the crash → the crash killed Bingham. A forensic toxicologist connects the BAC at the time of service to the BAC at the time of the crash through retrograde extrapolation — the science of working backward from a known blood-alcohol reading to estimate what it was earlier.
The dram shop claim against Twist Off Saloon is the deep-pocket claim — the one with insurance behind it. An 18-year-old driver is almost certainly judgment-proof, meaning any judgment against him personally is unlikely to be collectible. The bar, however, holds a TABC license, carries liability insurance (or a surety bond), and may have real assets. Finding out how much coverage exists — through discovery, through the TABC filing, through the bar’s corporate structure — is one of the first and most important jobs in the case.
The Defendant Map: Who Is Responsible
A dram shop wrongful death case in Odessa typically has more than one defendant, and each one is a different source of recovery — or a dead end. Here is the map:
Jose Contreras — the driver, age 18. He operated the vehicle while intoxicated, left the roadway, struck Bingham, and fled the scene. The criminal intoxication manslaughter charge establishes strong civil liability. But an 18-year-old is likely judgment-proof — he probably has minimal personal assets and minimal insurance. Any judgment against him personally is unlikely to be collectible. He is named in the civil suit because his fault must be established on the record, but the realistic recovery comes from elsewhere.
Twist Off Saloon — the alcohol provider. This is the critical defendant. Texas dram shop liability under the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code applies to the bar for serving an obviously intoxicated person who presented a danger to himself and others. The additional exposure for serving an underage patron creates the negligence per se claim. The bar’s insurance policy limits, its TABC surety bond, and its corporate assets will ultimately determine the realistic recovery. If the bar carries standard TABC-level coverage (typically in the range of $300,000 to $500,000) with no meaningful umbrella, recovery may be constrained. If excess coverage or substantial assets exist, the case supports a significantly higher value.
Twist Off Saloon ownership / operating entity — the corporate defendant. The business entity that owns or operates the bar holds direct and vicarious liability for the acts of its employees in over-serving an intoxicated minor. Discovery should identify the specific LLC or corporate structure, the TABC license holder of record, and any parent or affiliated entities. Bars are frequently operated through thinly capitalized single-purpose LLCs — but the TABC license holder of record, any management company, and any affiliated entities with assets should all be identified and evaluated as potential defendants.
Nadia Trevino — the adult companion, age 24. Her criminal indictment alleges she solicited, encouraged, directed, or aided Contreras in operating a vehicle while intoxicated. She faces a separate charge for furnishing alcohol to a minor. Civil exposure under theories of aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, and negligent undertaking. She is not currently named in the civil suit but represents a potential additional defendant. Whether she has assets or insurance worth pursuing is a separate question, but naming her locks in the theory and preserves the claim.
The coverage ladder matters here. The driver may carry Texas’s legal minimum auto insurance — one night in a trauma center can pass that amount. The bar’s liquor liability policy is the real target, and the question is whether it sits at $300,000, $500,000, $1 million, or higher. Behind that policy may sit an umbrella or excess layer. Knowing which policies exist, in what order they pay, and at what limits is half the value of the case.
If you or a family member has been killed by a drunk driver in Odessa or the Permian Basin, we encourage you to read our wrongful death practice page for a broader understanding of how these cases work in Texas.
Wrongful Death and Survival Damages in Texas
Texas law gives the surviving family two separate claims after a wrongful death — and a defense lawyer is happy to let a grieving family walk through only one door.
The Wrongful Death Action
The wrongful death action belongs to the surviving family — the spouse, children, and parents of the decedent. Under Texas law, each beneficiary has an independent claim. The damages include:
- Lost earning capacity — the income Bingham would have earned over his working life expectancy. At 25 years old, he had approximately 40 years of working life ahead. This requires forensic economic analysis of his occupation, earnings history, benefits, and household service contributions.
- Lost inheritance — what the children would have inherited had Bingham lived a normal lifespan.
- Mental anguish and loss of companionship — the grief, sorrow, and loss of the emotional relationship suffered by the widow and each of the three children. Each child has an independent claim. Each loss is separate. Each is real.
- Loss of household services — the value of the unpaid work Bingham did at home: childcare, cooking, repairs, driving, household management. This is valued by the replacement-cost method — what it would cost to hire someone to do everything he did for free.
The Survival Action
The survival action belongs to the decedent’s estate and carries the claim Bingham would have had — the pain, suffering, and economic loss between injury and death. Because Bingham was transported to Medical Center Hospital and “later died,” there was a measurable interval of awareness and medical treatment. The survival claim recovers:
- Pre-death conscious pain and suffering — what Bingham experienced between the impact and his death. The medical records from Medical Center Hospital will document the nature and duration of pre-death treatment.
- Pre-death medical expenses — the cost of the hospital care between admission and death.
- Funeral and burial costs
Punitive Damages
Texas punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of gross negligence — a higher standard than the preponderance of the evidence used for ordinary negligence. The criminal charges and the hit-and-run flight from the scene provide a strong evidentiary foundation for punitive damages against Contreras. The bar’s alleged knowing service to an obviously intoxicated underage patron — with awareness of the danger — supports punitive damages against Twist Off Saloon.
Texas imposes a statutory cap on punitive damages under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 41, tied to the amount of economic and non-economic damages. The cap limits but does not eliminate the punitive recovery.
No Non-Economic Damages Cap
Texas imposes no statutory cap on non-economic damages in non-medical-malpractice wrongful death cases. This is one of the state’s strongest advantages for families: the mental anguish, loss of companionship, and pain and suffering recoverable by the widow and each child are uncapped. The amount is whatever the jury decides is fair — limited only by the evidence, the skill of the presentation, and the conscience of the community.
The Statute of Limitations
Texas law gives surviving family members two years from the date of death to file a wrongful death lawsuit. The two-year clock is unforgiving — miss it and the case is gone, no matter how strong the evidence. There are limited tolling provisions, but none should be relied upon without speaking to an attorney. The date of death, not the date of the crash, starts the clock — and if the death followed the injury by days or weeks, the SOL runs from the later date.
The Insurance Reality: Coverage Towers and the Stowers Doctrine
Here is what the insurance company does not want you to know about how money moves in a dram shop wrongful death case.
The Coverage Tower
The at-fault driver — an 18-year-old — may carry Texas’s legal minimum auto insurance. Texas requires minimum liability coverage of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per incident for bodily injury. One night in a trauma center can pass that amount. The driver’s personal auto policy is likely a dead end for a wrongful death claim.
The bar — Twist Off Saloon — is the real target. Bars and restaurants that serve alcohol in Texas typically carry liquor liability insurance, and many also carry general liability policies that may or may not cover dram shop claims. The coverage amounts vary widely:
- Some bars carry the minimum TABC surety bond level — often in the range of $300,000 to $500,000.
- Some carry dedicated liquor liability policies at $1 million or more.
- Some carry excess or umbrella policies stacked above the primary coverage.
- Some are self-insured or operate through captive insurance arrangements.
The specific coverage tower for Twist Off Saloon must be established through discovery — the bar’s insurance policies, declarations pages, and any umbrella or excess layers. This is one of the first targets of the discovery process.
If the bar carries standard TABC-level coverage with no meaningful umbrella, recovery may be constrained to that policy limit. If excess coverage or substantial assets exist, the case supports a significantly higher value — potentially in the range described below.
The Stowers Doctrine
Texas has a powerful insurance principle called the Stowers doctrine. Here is how it works:
Once liability becomes reasonably clear — meaning the evidence is strong enough that a reasonable insurer would recognize the claimant is likely to recover a judgment — and the claimant’s attorney presents a settlement demand that is within the policy limits, the insurer has a duty to accept the demand and settle. If the insurer refuses, and the case goes to trial and produces a verdict exceeding the policy limits, the insurer can be held responsible for the full excess verdict — not just the policy amount.
This is the single most powerful lever in a dram shop case. When the evidence of over-service is strong — when the surveillance footage shows the obviously intoxicated teenager being served drink after drink, when the POS records confirm the volume, when the BAC proves the intoxication level — the bar’s insurer faces a choice: settle within the policy limits, or risk paying a verdict that could be many times the policy amount out of its own corporate pocket.
A well-documented Stowers demand package — assembling the criminal findings, the surveillance evidence, the toxicology, the damages model, and the demand within policy limits — is the engine that drives settlement in these cases. The insurer’s own financial risk becomes the family’s leverage.
For families dealing with insurance company tactics after a wrongful death, our insurance claim resource explains how carriers value claims and what you can do when they delay, deny, or lowball.
Criminal-Civil Coordination
The criminal cases against Contreras and Trevino are proceeding in Ector County. The civil wrongful death case is proceeding separately. These two cases must be coordinated — not merged, but strategically aligned.
What the criminal case gives the civil case:
– The BAC test results — foundational proof of intoxication level
– The crash investigation findings — the vehicle’s path, speed, point of departure
– Contreras’ indictment for intoxication manslaughter — a grand jury finding that his intoxication caused the death
– Trevino’s indictment for aiding and abetting and furnishing alcohol to a minor — a grand jury finding that she participated
– The hit-and-run evidence — flight from the scene without rendering aid, supporting punitive damages
– Any guilty pleas or convictions — which can be leveraged through collateral estoppel or used as powerful admissions
What the civil case must not do to the criminal case:
– Interfere with the prosecution’s strategy or timeline
– Create statements by the family that could be used against the criminal defendants in ways that complicate the prosecution
– Cause defense counsel to argue that the civil case is “buying testimony” or influencing witnesses
Coordination with the Ector County District Attorney’s office is essential. The family’s civil attorney and the criminal prosecutors should be aware of each other’s timelines and avoid creating any conflict between the proceedings. In many cases, the civil case can proceed on its own track while the criminal case moves toward trial or plea — and a criminal conviction or guilty plea before the civil mediation dramatically strengthens settlement leverage.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do
If you are reading this in the days after a drunk driver killed your loved one in Odessa, here is the practical roadmap.
Medical first. If anyone was injured and is still being treated, make sure the medical care is the priority. Symptoms can worsen or appear days later — the body hides injuries in the first hours of shock and adrenaline. Follow every doctor’s instruction. Keep every appointment. The medical record is the proof of the harm.
Do not sign anything. No release, no waiver, no settlement offer, no authorization for the insurance company to obtain records. If an insurance adjuster has already sent you a document, do not sign it. If you already signed something, it may not be too late — but you need an attorney to review it immediately.
Do not give a recorded statement. To anyone. Not the other driver’s insurance company, not the bar’s insurance company, not the bar’s attorney. A gentle, firm “I am not ready to give a statement” is all that is needed.
Do not post on social media. Nothing about the crash, nothing about your grief, nothing about your loved one, nothing about the driver, nothing about the bar. Insurance adjusters and defense attorneys monitor social media. A photograph of you smiling at a funeral — a completely normal human response to seeing family — can be quoted as “the family does not appear to be suffering.”
Preserve everything you have. Photographs from the scene, the tow yard, the hospital. Phone records. Text messages. Anything your loved one had with them. Do not let anyone — including the insurance company — take possession of the vehicle, the phone, or any personal property.
Call a lawyer. Not next month. Not after the funeral. Now. The preservation letter that saves the bar’s surveillance footage goes out the day you call — and that footage may already be on its last overwrite cycle. Every day without a preservation demand is a day the insurance company is counting on.
Why This Firm
Ralph Manginello is our Managing Partner — 27+ years licensed in Texas, admitted November 6, 1998, Texas Bar #24007597, federal-court admitted to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he builds cases the way a reporter builds a story — with facts, evidence, and a narrative a jury can follow. He is a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the Houston Bar Association, and he has spent more than two decades in courtrooms, including federal court, on behalf of injured people and families who lost someone. Read more about Ralph on his attorney profile page.
Lupe Peña is our Associate Attorney — Texas Bar #24084332, admitted December 6, 2012, federal-court admitted to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. Before joining this firm, Lupe spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decide how to deny, delay, and devalue claims. He knows how the other side prices a claim, how they pick their doctors, how they engineer recorded statements, and how they use delay as a weapon. Now he uses that knowledge for injured clients. Lupe is fluent in Spanish — he conducts full client consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. Learn more about Lupe on his attorney profile page.
We work on contingency. That means: 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The first call costs nothing and commits you to nothing. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911 — 1-888-288-9911. We have 24/7 live staff, not an answering service. Someone picks up.
We serve families in English and in Spanish. Hablamos Español.
If You Lost Someone to a Drunk Driver in Odessa
Here is what we want you to hear, directly:
Alex Bingham was an innocent man walking outside his own home. A vehicle left the roadway and killed him. The person behind the wheel was 18 years old and intoxicated. The bar that served him allegedly knew he was drunk and underage and kept pouring. Every person and every business that contributed to putting that intoxicated teenager behind the wheel of a 4,000-pound machine is responsible for what happened next.
The time of night does not diminish your right to accountability. The fact that he was walking does not make this his fault. The fact that the driver was young does not make the bar less responsible for serving him. The fact that the insurance company sounds sympathetic on the phone does not mean they are on your side.
The evidence is disappearing. The bar’s cameras may have already recorded over the footage of the night your loved one was killed. The servers who were working that night are moving on with their lives. The cell phone records that show the timeline are aging out of the carriers’ retention windows. Every day that passes without a preservation demand is a day the other side is counting on.
The consultation is free. The call costs nothing. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The number is 1-888-ATTY-911 — 1-888-288-9911. We answer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in English and in Spanish.
We handle wrongful death and dram shop cases across Texas, including Odessa, Ector County, Midland, and the entire Permian Basin. If you are not sure whether you have a case, the only way to find out is to ask — and asking costs nothing.
Call us. Let us talk through what happened. Let us tell you, honestly, whether we can help. And if we are not the right fit for your family, we will tell you that too.
1-888-ATTY-911. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Hablamos Español.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. Call us to talk about yours.