Florida Supreme Court Clarifies Florida’s Dram Shop Law

The Florida Supreme Court recently clarified whether the state’s comparative fault statute can be applied to cases in which a vendor is sued under the state’s dram shop law. 

Let’s take a closer look at the Court’s decision and its impact on businesses and legal practitioners.

Understanding Florida’s dram shop laws

Before we examine the Supreme Court’s ruling, it’s important to understand the foundation of dram shop laws in Florida. 

Traditionally, common law absolved vendors from liability arising from the sale of alcoholic beverages. Yet, over time, Florida, along with many other states, has acknowledged certain exceptions, giving rise to what are known as dram shop laws. 

These laws, codified under section 768.125 of the Florida Statutes, hold establishments like bars and restaurants liable if they “willfully and unlawfully” sell alcohol to underage or habitually addicted patrons and this action leads to damage or injury as a result of intoxication. 

Florida Supreme Court’s clarifying decision

The recent Supreme Court decision originated from a tragic event in which 20-year-old Devin Dwyer, a security guard at Potbelly’s, a well-known Tallahassee bar, struck and severely injured 18-year-old Jacquelyn Faircloth. 

At the time of the car accident, both individuals were intoxicated. Dwyer was driving home from Potbelly’s, and Faircloth was walking home after drinking at Cantina 101.

The family of Faircloth sued both Cantina 101 and Potbelly’s, asserting that the bars illegally served alcohol to the underage patrons, leading to the accident. 

A circuit judge issued a default judgment against Cantina 101 for failing to respond and later entered a $28.6 million judgment jointly and severally against the bars, which meant both could be legally responsible for paying all the damages.

In an appeal, the owners of Potbelly’s argued that the circuit judge had improperly rejected its comparative fault defense, which argued that any fault attributable to Faircloth should reduce the bar’s liability. A panel of the First District Court of Appeal agreed, saying the case involved a question of negligence, which would allow for comparative fault.

The Florida Supreme Court reviewed this case because it presented a question certified to be of great public importance, a power the Court holds to consider issues that have broad implications beyond just the immediate parties involved.

The Court’s examination centered on whether the comparative fault statute could apply to actions brought under the dram shop statute. 

In a decision that aligns with the First District Court of Appeal’s previous ruling, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed that the action permitted under the dram shop statute is indeed a “negligence action,” despite the requirement of willful misconduct,  thus subjecting it to the comparative fault statute. 

The Court explained that Section 768.125’s willfulness requirement indicates that a vendor’s liability under Florida’s dram shop law hinges on knowingly serving alcohol to minors, which is considered intentional misconduct. However, this differs from the intent associated with intentional torts, as it doesn’t involve a deliberate aim to harm but rather knowingly creating a risk.

Thus, while the statute requires proving the vendor’s awareness of the underage status of the purchaser, it doesn’t alter the fundamental negligence-based nature of the liability. Essentially, the law narrows liability to those who intentionally serve minors, without suggesting an intent to cause subsequent harm, maintaining the action within the scope of negligence.

Broad implications

This ruling has significant implications for Florida’s hospitality industry and legal practitioners. Bars and other alcohol-serving establishments now have the opportunity to assert comparative fault defenses, potentially reducing their liability by arguing that the injured party’s negligence (for example, their decision to drink too much or while underage) contributed to their harm. 

Divergent views and the path forward 

While the Supreme Court’s majority found common ground in interpreting the dram shop exception as a negligence action, dissenting opinions highlighted the contentious nature of transforming a statute requiring willful acts into a negligence framework. These dissenting views underscore the ongoing debate over the balance between holding vendors accountable and recognizing the shared responsibility for alcohol-related injuries.

This ruling underscores the importance of a nuanced understanding of dram shop laws and comparative fault principles. Legal practitioners must stay abreast of these developments, ensuring they provide informed, strategic counsel to their clients, whether they represent injured parties or establishments facing liability.