Persen v. Southland Corp.
656 So. 2d 453, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 218, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 732 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Florida Statute Section 768.125, which imposes liability on one who 'knowingly serves' a habitual drunkard, does not apply to a retail seller who sells closed-container alcoholic beverages to an adult for consumption off the premises.
Facts:
- Terje Persen and Elizabeth Dryhurst, as personal representative of the Estate of Mette Valland, filed suit against the Southland Corporation.
- The Southland Corporation owned a retail establishment named '7-11'.
- An alcohol-related automobile accident occurred.
- The accident resulted in the death of Mette Valland and serious injury to Terje Persen.
- Southland Corporation's 7-11 store allegedly sold a twelve-pack of beer to an individual who was a habitual drunkard.
- The twelve-pack of beer was sold in a closed container for consumption off the premises of the 7-11 store.
Procedural Posture:
- Terje Persen and Elizabeth Dryhurst filed a lawsuit against the Southland Corporation in the trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court concluded that Southland Corporation could not be held liable under section 768.125.
- Persen and Dryhurst appealed the trial court's decision to the Fourth District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal (appellee Southland Corporation, appellants Persen and Dryhurst) affirmed the trial court's conclusion, holding that Southland could not be held liable.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 Florida Statute Section 768.125, which imposes liability on one who 'knowingly serves' a habitual drunkard, apply to a retail seller who sells closed-container alcoholic beverages to an adult for consumption off premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Kogan, J.
No, Section 768.125 does not apply to a retail establishment that sells closed-container alcoholic beverages to an adult for off-premises consumption. The Court reasoned that the statute distinguishes between those who 'sells or furnishes' alcohol to minors and those who 'knowingly serves' alcohol to habitual drunkards. By using the term 'serves,' the legislature intended to cover only vendors who 'place food or drink before' a habitual drunkard, such as bars, taverns, or restaurants, and not retail establishments selling closed containers for off-premises consumption. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to limit, rather than expand, vendor liability, especially given that the legislature specifically removed language from an earlier bill that would have tied habitual drunkard liability to the broader criminal statute for alcohol sales. Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of prior judicial decisions holding retail establishments liable for such off-premises sales, suggesting it would be illogical for a liability-limiting statute to create a new, previously unrecognized cause of action.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of dram shop liability under Florida law, particularly regarding the 'habitual drunkard' exception. It limits liability for such claims primarily to on-premises serving establishments like bars and restaurants, providing a clear distinction from retail stores that sell packaged alcohol for off-premises consumption. The decision reinforces the principle that legislative intent to limit liability will be strictly construed, preventing the judicial creation of new causes of action where the statutory language does not expressly provide for them. This creates a more predictable legal landscape for different types of alcohol vendors in Florida, shielding package stores from this specific type of liability.
