Sabo v. Shamrock Communications, Inc.
1990 WL 71773, 566 So. 2d 267, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6907 (1990)
Rule of Law:
Under Florida Statute 768.125, a vendor's liability for serving a habitually addicted person can be established through circumstantial evidence regarding both the patron's addiction and the vendor's knowledge, as a contrary interpretation would render the statute virtually meaningless.
Facts:
- Daniel Hoag consumed a large number of alcoholic beverages at Peoples Restaurants, Inc. (Peoples) bar.
- After leaving Peoples bar, Daniel Hoag caused an automobile accident while intoxicated.
- Mary Sabo suffered injuries in the automobile accident caused by Daniel Hoag.
- Daniel Hoag testified he was an alcoholic and/or habitually addicted to alcohol at the time of the accident.
- For at least two years prior to the accident, Hoag normally consumed a case of beer daily while on his construction job and then drank hard liquor at Peoples or other bars each evening until intoxicated.
- Hoag got drunk every time he went to Peoples, and the bartenders never refused him service.
- When drunk, Hoag became loud and talkative, slurred his words, became unbalanced, and had red eyes.
- Hoag visited Peoples twice a week for two years and at least that often for the four months preceding the accident, becoming well-known to the evening bartenders who frequently talked to him and started pouring his favorite drink (White Russian) as soon as he arrived, often free-pouring double drinks (four shots of liquor per drink), even though White Russians were not part of Happy-Hour.
- On the night of the accident, Hoag had consumed so much alcohol at Peoples that he could not recall much about leaving the bar or the accident itself.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Sabo (plaintiff) initiated a personal injury case against Peoples Restaurants, Inc. (defendant) and Shamrock Communications, Inc. (defendant) in a trial court.
- The trial court entered a final summary judgment denying Sabo's recovery against Peoples Restaurants, Inc.
- Mary Sabo (appellant) appealed the final summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth 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:
Can the knowledge required by section 768.125, Florida Statutes, to establish a bar's liability for serving a habitually addicted person, be proven by circumstantial evidence, and does the record in this case establish a jury question regarding Hoag's habitual addiction and Peoples' knowledge?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Sharp
Yes, the knowledge required by section 768.125, Florida Statutes, to establish a bar's liability for serving a habitually addicted person can be proven by circumstantial evidence, and the record in this case establishes material issues of fact for a jury regarding both Hoag's habitual addiction and Peoples' knowledge. The court rejected Peoples' argument that direct evidence, such as a customer's express declaration of alcoholism, is required, stating that such an interpretation would make the statute 'virtually meaningless' because habitually addicted persons rarely announce their condition. The court found no policy reason to differentiate the proof of knowledge for serving adults from that for serving minors, where circumstantial evidence is accepted. The extensive circumstantial evidence presented, including Hoag's consistent pattern of heavy drinking at Peoples, his visible signs of intoxication, the bartenders' familiarity with him, and their continued service of large, free-poured drinks, was sufficient to create a jury question on Peoples' knowledge of his addiction. Furthermore, Hoag's testimony about his inability to control his drinking aligned with the definition of 'habitual intemperance' established in Todd v. Todd, providing sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude he was habitually addicted.
Concurring - Cobb
Judge Cobb concurs with the majority's result. He notes that the constitutionality of the part of section 768.125 relating to liability for 'knowingly' serving alcoholic beverages to 'a person habitually addicted' to their use was not raised as an issue on appeal and, therefore, must be assumed arguendo given the current posture of the case. He further observed that previous Florida Supreme Court cases (Dowell v. Gracewood Fruit Company, Bankston v. Brennan) established that this section applies only to sellers of alcoholic beverages, not social hosts, but did not address the constitutionality of the act itself.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it clarifies the evidentiary standard for establishing liability under Florida's dram shop act when a vendor serves a habitually addicted person. By allowing circumstantial evidence to prove both the patron's addiction and the vendor's knowledge, the court ensures that the statute remains a viable mechanism for accountability, rather than being rendered ineffective by an overly strict evidentiary requirement. This ruling eases the burden on plaintiffs seeking to hold alcohol vendors responsible and will likely lead to greater reliance on observations of patron behavior, frequency of visits, and the quantity of alcohol served in future litigation, potentially prompting establishments to enhance staff training on identifying signs of habitual addiction.
