TERRY J. STANAGE, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WAYNE D. BILBO, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A minor injured by a shotgun discharged by an intoxicated teenager sued the defendant who sold beer to a 13-year-old girl, claiming negligence per se based on violation of Florida's statute prohibiting sales to minors. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that violation of the statute alone does not establish actionable negligence without proximate cause and foreseeability.
The court held that negligence per se based on statutory violation does not constitute actionable negligence without proof that the violation was a proximate cause of the injury. Summary judgment was properly entered because probable cause and foreseeability were not present—the injury resulted from an intervening act (the accidental discharge of a shotgun) not foreseeable as a probable result of the beer sale.
[1] A violation of a statute does not automatically establish actionable negligence; proximate cause must also be proven.
[2] Liability for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor does not render the vendor strictly liable for all subsequent intervening acts.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The fact of negligence per se resulting from a violation of a statute does not mean that there is actionable negligence. Among other things it must be shown that the violation of the statute was a proximate cause of the injury.”
Establishes that statutory violation alone is insufficient; proximate cause is required for actionable negligence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA 13-year-old girl purchased two six-packs of beer from the defendant. She and two teenage male companions drove to remote lime pits to camp. One boy …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Negligence Per Se cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
This appeal questions the propriety of the summary final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of appellees, defendants below.
The undisputed facts before the trial court reveal that a thirteen year-old girl purchased two six packs of beer from defendant while her two teenage male companions waited in a pick-up truck around the back of defendant’s building where they had parked so they would not be seen. The three teenagers then drove out to nearby lime pits to camp, and there the boys, one of whom was the minor plaintiff, each consumed several of the beers. The truck was driven by the other boy who had a sawed-off shotgun hidden behind the seat, and who removed the shotgun for protection while they hunted firewood. Upon return to the campsite the youth holding the shotgun stumbled because of his unsteadiness caused by drinking beer and the shotgun discharged, injuring the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s cause of action was based on the violation of law by defendant in selling beer to the 13 year-old girl contrary to Section 562.11, Florida Statutes (1975). He argues that this breach is negligence per se and entitles him to damages because his injury would not have occurred but for this violation. We conclude that the trial judge was correct in granting the summary judgment.
The fact of negligence per se resulting from a violation of a statute does not mean that there is actionable negligence. Among other things it must be shown that the violation of the statute was a proximate cause of the injury, de Jesus v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1973).
We adopt the view and conclusions expressed in Bryant v. Jax Liquors, 352 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), in a factual situation quite analagous to this one, wherein the court stated:
Negligence per se does not constitute strict liability. Placing into the flow of commerce alcoholic beverages, by selling same to a minor, does not render the vendor strictly liable for every ensuing act that intervenes between the sale and the consumption of same. Liability must in every instance be determined by the circumstances. Williams v. Youngblood, 152 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). Foreseeability and proximate cause are essential principles of negligence actions that must be alleged. “Probable cause” is not “possible cause”. “Foreseeable” is not “what might possibly occur”.
Because probable cause and foreseeability are clearly not present here, we find no error in the entry of summary judgment for defendant. The judgment of the trial court is therefore
AFFIRMED.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Migliore v. Crown Liquors OF Broward, Inc., 448 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1984)…ged indicating that the seller had reason to believe that the rum was going to be consumed by Bryant or others, whose impairment of faculties resulting from consumption of alcoholic beverages caused Bryant’s injuries. Likewise, in Stanage [v. Bilbo, 382 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)] there was no showing that the injuries resulted from the consumption by the purchasing minor of the illegally sold beer nor were facts alleged from which it could be said that the seller should have foreseen that the beer was li…
-
Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…laintiff reversed, injury not foreseeable); Fellows v. Citizens Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 383 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), (summary judgment for defendant affirmed, negligent design of driveway not legal cause of accident); Stanage v. Bilbo, 382 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), (summary judgment for defendant affirmed, sale of beer to teenager, injury to another from accidental shotgun discharge, not actionable negligence); Melton v. Estes, 379 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), (summary judgment for defe…
-
Marietta Goode v. Walt Disney World Co., 425 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…oard Coast Line Railroad Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977). Negligence must be shown to be a proximate cause of the injury, and proximate cause does not equal possible cause, nor does it cover every possibility that may indeed occur. Stanage v. Bilbo, 382 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Here the appellant contends that the child got into the water by climbing the fence and crossing the grassy area to the moat. No evidence of these actions is present in the record, and no witnesses were present. Disney, on the…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Transition Rule 15, 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973)
- City OF Miami v. Gates, 352 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Williams v. Youngblood, 152 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)