CopyCited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 619, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 1625, 1991 WL 183088
...y cause of action for a one-car accident involving an injured adult drinker/driver; and (2) even if there was a cause of action, the complaint did not allege that the bar had received written notice from the habitual drunkard's family as required by section 562.50, Florida Statutes (1987)....
...includes the habitual drunkard himself, as well as those he consequently injures. However, the court concluded that the complaint was properly dismissed because prior written notice of Ellis's alcohol addiction had not been provided, as required by section
562.50. In reaching this conclusion, the district court of appeal determined that sections
562.50 and
768.125 must be read in pari materia because they deal with the same subject matter, i.e., the unlawful dispensing of alcohol and the consequences thereof, and because the legislative history of section
768.125 reflects that the legislature intended that *1044 the two statutes be read together. The district court also concluded that the written notice requirement under section
562.50 is a prerequisite to recovery....
...ents of the criminal offense in section
562.11(1)(a) to prevail in a civil action. Once these elements have been proven, the plaintiff has established negligence per se. See Davis. The criminal offense for sales to habitual drunkards is contained in section
562.50, Florida Statutes (1987), the pertinent part of which reads as follows: Any person who shall sell, give away, dispose of, exchange, or barter any alcoholic beverage, or any essence, extract, bitters, preparation, compound, composition,...
...n who is a habitual drunkard. The next question we must resolve is what constitutes "knowledge" in order for a vendor's conduct to be found negligent. The respondents argue that section
768.125 must be read in pari materia with the criminal statute, section
562.50, to require written notification of the vendor before recovery under section
768.125 is permissible. We recognize that section
768.125 was initially enacted by chapter 80-37, Laws of Florida, as section
562.51, immediately following the criminal provision pertaining to habitual drunkards in section
562.50....
...unlawful" for minors and the word "knowingly" for habitual drunkards is critical to this issue and was purposefully done by the legislature. As originally introduced, section
768.125 required establishment of the elements of the criminal offense in section
562.50 in order for there to be liability in a civil action....
...ard. Fla. H.R.Jour. 216, 224-25 (Reg.Sess. 1980). Given the legislative history of section
768.125, and the use of the term knowingly rather than unlawfully in the statute, we hold that written notice as required to establish the criminal offense in section
562.50 is not a requisite to proving knowingly as a predicate to a negligence claim for an injury resulting from a vendor's knowingly serving alcoholic beverages to a habitual drunkard....
...19, 1991), that this element can properly be *1049 established by circumstantial evidence. The claim being established under this exception is ordinary negligence, not negligence per se. To establish negligence per se, the plaintiff would have to establish each of the elements of the criminal offense, as contained in section 562.50, including the requirement of written notice....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 38
...e posed a danger to himself and others. Jax moved to dismiss the complaint, contending it did not state a cause of action in that it failed to assert that Jax had been provided with written notice that Hinnant was an habitual drunkard as required by § 562.50, Fla....
...im. Jax again filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was deficient as it contained no allegation of written notice, and that §
768.125 was unconstitutional. On October 16, 1985 the court granted Jax's motion to dismiss. It found that §
562.50, which requires written notice as a *928 prerequisite to imposition of any criminal liability on a seller of alcohol, must be read in pari materia with §
768.125....
...Pritchard was given ten days to amend but failed or refused to do so and filed a notice of appeal. This court temporarily relinquished jurisdiction and an appealable final judgment was entered January 1, 1986. Pritchard contends that it is not necessary that §
562.50 and §
768.125 be read and construed in pari materia and that the court erred in requiring an action filed pursuant to §
768.125 to allege that a server of alcohol has received written notice as required by §
562.50. We agree. Section
562.50 is a criminal statute which provides: Habitual drunkards; furnishing intoxicants to, after notice....
...Both statutes involve the serving of alcoholic beverages, but one is a criminal statute and the other is a civil statute. Although the two statutes relate to the same subject, the serving of alcoholic beverages, they were *929 enacted at different times for entirely different purposes. Section 562.50 was enacted in 1945 and subjects the provider of alcohol to criminal liability for serving alcohol to a "habitually addicted" person if the person's family has previously provided written notice that the person has a drinking problem....
...Instead it merely requires that service to such a person be provided "knowingly" without any specification of how such knowledge must be obtained. Although it appears the legislature may have obtained the "habitually addicted" language of §
768.125 from §
562.50, it specifically did not also utilize the provision concerning written notice....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 48621
...irst party cause of action for a one-car accident involving an injured adult drinker/driver and because the complaint did not allege that the bar had received written notice from the habitual drunkard's family required as a predicate to liability in section 562.50, Florida Statutes (1987)....
...2d DCA 1984), and Pritchard v. Jax Liquors, Inc.,
499 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), review denied,
511 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1987). We affirm the dismissal of the suit but not for the reason given by the trial court. Our decision turns on our analysis of the relationship between section
562.50, found in the chapter titled "Beverage Law: Enforcement," and section
768.125, found in the chapter titled "Negligence." [1] The two sections read as follows:
562.50 Habitual drunkards; furnishing intoxicants to, after notice....
...a person who is not of lawful drinking age or who knowingly serves a person habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such minor or person. Section 562.50 is primarily a criminal statute since it specifies that if a liquor vendor provides an intoxicant to a person who is habitually addicted to the intoxicant, after *1211 receiving written notice from the addict's family that the person is so addicted, such vendor shall be guilty of a second degree misdemeanor....
...ed in a one-car accident as a result of being served alcohol may sue for damages against the liquor vendor. The appellees contend, on the other hand, that the statutory sections must be read in pari materia so that the written notice prerequisite of section
562.50 be maintained in the application of section
768.125 before civil liability can attach; and, further, that section
768.125 does not, itself, provide a cause of action....
...There, the court reversed the dismissal of a complaint by a third party who was injured by a habitual addict. The complaint, although alleging a violation of section
768.125, did not additionally allege that written notice had been received by the liquor vendor as required in section
562.50....
...In allowing the complaint to stand, the district court declined to read the statutes in pari materia. The appellant relies upon Pritchard in arguing that she, too, was not required to allege written notice in her first party complaint. She urges us to reverse, first of all, because the class of persons to be protected under section 562.50 includes the habitual drunkard himself as well as those he consequently injures....
...Therefore, the appellant's argument follows, her first party complaint should be allowed to stand as was the similar third party complaint in Pritchard. We have no disagreement with the appellant and this facet of her interpretation of Pritchard since we also believe that the class of persons to be protected under section 562.50 includes the habitual drunkard/driver as well as those whom he or she injures....
...njured themselves, id., and to others whom the intoxicated minor injured, Prevatt v. McClennan. See Migliore,
448 So.2d at 980. The creation of any new cause of action, nonexistent at common law, thus occurred in the enactment of sections
562.11 and
562.50....
...he enactment of section
768.125. Bankston,
507 So.2d at 1386 citing Migliore,
448 So.2d at 981. [2] As the evolution of the law of liquor vendor liability presently stands in Florida, the liability and causes of action founded on sections
562.11 and
562.50 (initially only criminal liability expanded by case law also *1213 to mean civil liability) is now constricted by section
768.125. Keeping in mind, then, the legislatively limited nature of liquor vendor liability in Florida, we are, contrary to our sister court in Pritchard, constrained to read sections
562.50 and
768.125 in pari materia because they deal with the same subject matter unlawful dispensing of alcohol and the consequences thereof, whether civil or criminal. Our view that the two sections are closely interrelated is supported by the fact that when section
768.125 was enacted, the legislature numbered it section
562.51, placing it directly after section
562.50....
...nd unlawfully sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person under 18 years of age may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such minor and provided further that any person convicted of a violation of s. 562.50 may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such drunkard....
...Right now the statute, the bill, would propose that the only time you could be held liable is when you willingfully [sic] and knowful [sic] willingly and unlawfully serve a person under 18 and where you have been convicted under the Florida Statute 562.50....
...Below is a comparison of the elements of the bill as originally introduced and the elements of the amended version: CIVIL LIABILITY WILL BE IMPOSED ONLY WHEN THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS ARE PROVEN ORIGINAL BILL: FINAL VERSION AS AMENDED: conviction of violation of section 562.50 service to habitual drunkard (which includes a written notice done knowingly; requirement); injury or damage; injury or damage; caused by drunkard's intoxication....
...*1215 The criteria in the original version were apparently seen as too stringent to assure passage and the amendment was proposed to dilute these requirements. All the criteria of the original bill were retained in the amended version except the requirement of a previous conviction under section 562.50....
...ined is further evidence that we reach the correct conclusion in interpreting this legislative concern. Regarding notice as a prerequisite to civil liability, the legislature retained in section
562.51 (i.e.,
768.125) the other integral component of section
562.50 (besides the conviction) by requiring that the server of liquor must knowingly serve the habitual drunkard. The legislature was, of course, cognizant of the manner necessary to impart the requisite knowledge in order to impose liability under section
562.50, i.e., written notice....
...and that we view the entire statutory scheme to determine legislative intent. Since section
768.125 is a limiting provision and does not create any cause of action, it could not broaden, or make easier, the way in which the existing liability under section
562.50 would attach....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 153964
...ounds: It was not liable under section
768.125 because there was no evidence that it knew Moulton was habitually addicted to alcohol, and it had not received prior written notice of Moulton's alcohol addiction, which they asserted was required under section
562.50, Florida Statutes (1988)....
...Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment entered for Nick's Bar and remand for further proceedings. FARMER, J., and ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Senior Justice, concur. NOTES [1] The trial court correctly ruled that there was no specific requirement for written notice under section 562.50, Florida Statutes....
