BARBARA ARMSTRONG AND DONALD E. ARMSTRONG, SR., PETITIONERS,
v.
MUNFORD, INC., RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court holds that a third party may bring a cause of action against a dispenser of alcoholic beverages for injuries caused by a minor, but only if the sale or furnishing of alcoholic beverages was done willfully, as required by section 768.125, Florida Statutes. The court affirms summary judgment for the defendant where no willful sale was established.
Yes, a third party has a cause of action against a dispenser of alcoholic beverages for injuries caused by a minor, but only when the sale or furnishing of alcoholic beverages was done willfully under section 768.125. Section 768.125 constitutes a limitation on the pre-existing liability of vendors of intoxicating beverages by requiring a showing of willfulness.
[1] A third party does not have a cause of action against a dispenser of alcoholic beverages for injuries caused by a minor when the alcoholic beverages were furnished in vio…
[2] Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981), requires that the selling or furnishing of alcoholic beverages to a minor must be done willfully to establish liability for inju…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“although section 768.125 did not create a cause of action for third persons against dispensers of intoxicants for injuries caused by intoxicated minors, it does constitute a limitation on the already existing liability of vendors of intoxicating beverages”
Establishes that section 768.125 limited but did not eliminate third-party causes of action against alcohol dispensers
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbara and Donald Armstrong were injured by a minor who had consumed alcoholic beverages. The beverages were allegedly furnished in violation of sect…
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.
. ALDERMAN, Chief Justice.
We accept jurisdiction to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Armstrong v. Munford, Inc., 439 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), wherein that court has certified the following question as being of great public importance:
Does a third party have a cause of action against the dispenser of alcoholic beverages for injuries caused by a minor when the alcoholic beverages were furnished in violation of section 562.11(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), notwithstanding the enactment of section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981)?
The district court held that section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981), in effect at the time of the accident involved in this case, requires that the selling or furnishing of the alcoholic beverage to a minor must be done willfully. It further held that in the present case there were neither allegations nor proof of a willful sale by Munford, Inc., of alcoholic beverages to a minor. We approve the result reached by the district court.
Unlike the situation in either Migliore v. Crown Liquors, Inc., 448 So. 2d 978 (Fla.1984), or Barber v. Jensen, 450 So. 2d 830, No. 63,598 (Fla. Mar. 8, 1984), the present accident occurred after the effective date of section 768.125.
In our recent decisions of Migliore and Barber, we held that prior to the effective date of section 768.125, a third party who could establish proximate causation for his injuries did have a cause of action against the person who furnished alcoholic beverages to a minor in violation of section 562.-11. We also stated, however, that although section 768.125 did not create a cause of action for third persons against dispensers of intoxicants for injuries caused by intoxicated minors, it does constitute a limitation on the already existing liability of vendors of intoxicating beverages. The district court correctly held that section 768.125 requires that the selling or furnishing of the alcoholic beverage must be done willfully. Section 768.125 controls in those cases arising after its effective date.
Accordingly, although we do not approve all of its rationale, we approve the result reached by the district court to affirm the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Munford, Inc. It is so ordered.
ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, MCDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Bankston v. Brennan, 507 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1987)…rast, chapter 768 concerns negligence law. The majority opinion asserts that our prior pronouncements concerning the effect of section 768.125 in Migliore v. Crown Liquors of Broward, Inc., 448 So. 2d 978 (Fla.1984), and Armstrong v. Munford, Inc., 451 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1984), require us to limit liability to tavern owners who serve alcoholic beverages to minors. In Migliore, we discussed and approved of our prior holding in Davis v. Shiappacossee, 155 So. 2d 365 (Fla.1963), that the minor to whom a vendor il…1 / 2
-
Ellis v. N.G.N. OF Tampa, Inc., 586 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1991)…of vendors of intoxicating beverages,” and that “the legislative intent that this statute limit the existing liability of liquor vendors is clear from its enacting title.” Id. at 980-81. This Court faced similar issues in Armstrong v. Munford, Inc., 451 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1984), and Forlaw v. Fitzer, 456 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1984). In those cases, we reaffirmed our holding in Migliore that the statute constituted a limitation on the existing liability of vendors. [*1047] In Bankston v. Brennan, 507 So. 2d 1385 (Fla.1…
-
Kitchen v. K-Mart Corp., 697 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1997)…purchaser’s incompetency as an incidental by-product of the normal sales routine." Id. at 262. . See Davis v. Shiappacossee, 155 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1963); Prevatt v. McClennan, 201 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). . (Citing Armstrong v. Munford, Inc., 451 So. 2d 480, 481 (Fla. 1984), and Forlaw v. Fitzer, 456 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla.1984)). . Section 790.17, Florida Statutes (1987), which was in effect at the time of the incident, states: Whoever sells, hires, barters, lends, or gives any minor under 18 years of…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Migliore v. Crown Liquors OF Broward, Inc., 448 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1984)
- Barber v. Jensen, 450 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1984)
- Armstrong v. Munford, Inc., 439 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)