Fleuridor v. Surf Café
2001 WL 6180, 775 So. 2d 411 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Statute § 768.125, a vendor of alcoholic beverages can only be held liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated person if the vendor knowingly served a person habitually addicted to alcohol, and such knowledge cannot be established solely by serving multiple drinks on a single occasion to a patron exhibiting no overt signs of intoxication.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Todd Bouchard attended a party where he consumed approximately three beers.
- After the party, Bouchard and about twelve other people went to the Surf Café.
- Bouchard remained at the Surf Café for two to three hours and consumed about five drinks, three or four of which he purchased directly from the bartender.
- While at Surf Café, Bouchard walked and spoke normally, showed no signs of intoxication, and engaged in activities like shooting pool, playing foosball, and throwing darts.
- While driving home, Bouchard's vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Wilbert Fleuridor.
- Subsequent tests revealed that Bouchard's blood alcohol level was over the legal limit at the time of the collision.
- Bouchard testified that he was not a habitual drunkard, did not drink during the week, and typically went out for a drink about three Saturdays a month.
- Bouchard had only been to Surf Café two or three times prior to the accident, with the last visit six months before, and was not known by the bartenders.
Procedural Posture:
- Wilbert Fleuridor asserted a claim against Surf Café, alleging liability for injuries caused by Jeffrey Todd Bouchard.
- Surf Café filed a motion for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Surf Café.
- Wilbert Fleuridor, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does serving multiple alcoholic drinks to an individual who exhibits no signs of intoxication on a single occasion, coupled with post-accident behavior or speculative future incidents, constitute sufficient evidence for a vendor to 'knowingly' serve a person habitually addicted to alcohol under Florida Statute § 768.125?
Opinions:
Majority - Stone, J.
No, serving multiple alcoholic drinks to an individual who exhibits no signs of intoxication on a single occasion, coupled with post-accident behavior or speculative future incidents, does not constitute sufficient evidence for a vendor to 'knowingly' serve a person habitually addicted to alcohol under Florida Statute § 768.125. The court affirmed summary judgment for Surf Café, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Surf Café knowingly served a person habitually addicted to alcohol. Florida Statute § 768.125 provides an exception to vendor non-liability where a person 'knowingly serves a person habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages.' Citing Ellis v. N.G.N. of Tampa, Inc., the court reiterated that serving multiple drinks on one occasion is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish that the vendor knowingly served a habitual drunkard, though serving a substantial number of drinks on multiple occasions could be circumstantial evidence. The court found that Bouchard exhibited no signs of intoxication at Surf Café, was not a regular, and was unknown to the staff. The bartender had no reason to believe Bouchard was intoxicated or habitually addicted. Furthermore, allegations made by Bouchard's ex-girlfriend nearly a year and a half after the accident were deemed irrelevant to Surf Café's knowledge at the time of service. The court distinguished Roster v. Moulton because that case involved 8-12 drinks in a short period, the driver's admission of a drinking problem, and expert witness affidavits stating the behavior would put a reasonable server on notice; none of these compelling factors were present here.
Concurring - Shahood, J.
Concurring.
Concurring - Hazouri, J.
Concurring.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high evidentiary threshold required to establish 'knowing service' to a habitual drunkard under Florida's dram shop liability statute. It reinforces that isolated instances of heavy drinking or post-incident evidence are generally insufficient to impute knowledge to an alcohol vendor, emphasizing the need for contemporaneous, observable signs of intoxication or a pattern of interactions indicative of habitual addiction. The ruling serves as a strong precedent for limiting vendor liability, making it challenging for plaintiffs to successfully pursue claims under this narrow exception unless they can demonstrate direct evidence of the vendor's knowledge at the time of service, which often involves the patron being a known regular or exhibiting obvious, extreme signs of alcohol dependency.
