MICHAEL GOODELL, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS G. NEMETH, APPELLEE
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 court affirmed dismissal of a negligence complaint brought by an adult plaintiff who shot himself with the defendant's loaded handgun while voluntarily intoxicated at the defendant's home. The court held that the plaintiff could not recover for injuries caused by his own voluntary negligence, even though the defendant made the loaded firearm available.
The court held that as a matter of law the injury was the proximate result of the plaintiff's own negligence, and that the plaintiff cannot shield himself from his own negligence by his voluntary intoxication. The fact that the plaintiff's intoxication occurred at the defendant's home and that the gun was made available by the defendant does not alter the voluntary nature of the plaintiff's acts.
[1] Voluntary intoxication does not shield a plaintiff from the consequences of their own negligence.
[2] A plaintiff's own negligence can be the proximate cause of their injuries, even when a defendant provides a loaded firearm.
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“plaintiff cannot shield himself from his own negligence by his voluntary intoxication”
Establishes the core holding that a plaintiff's voluntary intoxication does not excuse liability for his own negligent acts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff, while voluntarily intoxicated in defendant's home, shot himself with defendant's handgun. Defendant had handed the gun to plaintiff and had…
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 Voluntary Intoxication Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s third amended complaint which purported to allege causes of action for negligent entrustment of a loaded firearm, negligence per se in violation of section 790.17, Florida Statutes (1985), which forbids the entrustment of weapons to persons of unsound mind, and negligence. We agree with the trial court that no cause of action was stated by the adult plaintiff who, while voluntarily intoxicated in defendant’s home, was alleged to have shot himself with defendant’s handgun.
It is alleged that defendant handed the gun to plaintiff before plaintiff shot himself, that defendant had placed a bullet in the gun, and that plaintiff did not know defendant had done so. It is not alleged that defendant tricked or misled plaintiff into believing the gun was unloaded, that defendant knew plaintiff did not know that defendant had put the bullet into the gun, that defendant in any way caused or induced plaintiff to shoot the gun, or that defendant knew or had reason to know plaintiff would shoot it. Nor is it alleged whether or not the gun had contained any bullets before the time defendant placed the bullet in it prior to the shooting or whether plaintiff or defendant knew that it did or did not contain any bullets before that time. At best the third amended complaint could be taken to indicate that defendant knew the gun was loaded with at least one bullet and that plaintiff did not know whether or not the gun was loaded when he pulled the trigger and shot himself.1 Under these circumstances plaintiff argues that there was a duty on the part of defendant to protect the intoxicated plaintiff from himself.
We conclude that as a matter of law the injury was shown to be the proximate result of plaintiffs own negligence and that plaintiff cannot shield himself from his own negligence by his voluntary intoxication. See Reed v. Black Caesar’s Forge Gourmet Restaurant, Inc., 165 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 172 So. 2d 597 (Fla.1965) (“[T]he death of the plaintiffs husband was the result of his own negligence or his own voluntary act of rendering himself incapable of driving a car rather than the remote act of the defendant in dispensing the liquor, or delivering the ignition keys and possession of the automobile.”). See also Personal Representative of the Estate of Starling v. Fisherman’s Pier, Inc., 401 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), petition for review denied, 411 So. 2d 381 (Fla.1981), which departed from Black Caesar’s only on the basis that the intoxicated person in Fisherman’s was owed a duty by the defendant commercial establishment on whose premises he was seen in imminent danger prior to losing his life from that danger which was easily avoidable by defendant. See also Barnes v. B.K. Credit Service, Inc., 461 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), petition for review denied, 467 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1985).
That plaintiffs intoxication occurred in defendant’s home and that the gun was made available by defendant does not alter the voluntary nature of plaintiffs acts. Also, the doctrine of comparative negligence, which was adopted subsequent to the decision in Black Caesar’s, does not create a cause of action for a plaintiff whose negligence is the cause of his injuries. See Strickland v. Roberts, 382 So. 2d 1338, 1339-40 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Affirmed.
HALL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur. . The third amended complaint alleges that plaintiff accidentally shot himself but does not describe the injury. According to counsel for both sides on appeal, plaintiff shot himself when he put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gorday v. Faris, 523 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…27 A.D.2d 916 (N.Y.App. 3d 1987) (estate of decedent, whose blood alcohol level had been 0.20 percent, had no viable common-law cause of action for negligent entrustment against automobile owner). The Second District’s opinion in Goodell v. Nemeth, 501 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986), while on its face containing language supporting appellees’ contention that one who is injured by his own negligence has no cause of action, is distinguishable. There, the court found that the facts as alleged in the complaint c…
-
Foster v. Arthur, 519 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…le in the present case, very clearly a gun owner authorizes another to use his firearm when he personally delivers the gun to that person to be used by him. E.g., see Jordan v. Lamar, supra (owner loaned his revolver to a friend); Goodell v. Nemeth, 501 So. 2d 36 (Fla.2d DCA 1986) (owner handed his gun to a guest in his home); Mercier v. Meade, 384 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (father delivered his gun to his son for their mutual benefit); Acosta v. Daughtry, 268 So. 2d 416 (Fla.3d DCA 1972), cert. den. 27…
-
Bardy v. Walt Disney World Co., 643 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…Ltd. Partnership, 559 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (operator of valet parking service breached no duty to plaintiff by returning car to obviously intoxicated owner whose negligent driving subsequently caused injury to plaintiff); Goodell v. Nemeth, 501 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (homeowner was not liable for injuries to intoxicated guest who shot himself in head with loaded gun provided by homeowner). . In this case, Bardy claimed that Disney was liable ■ for Bardy’s injuries under the premises liability…
Authorities Cited
- Barnes v. B.K. Credit Serv., Inc., 461 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Lorna Reed v. Black Caesar's Forge Gourmet Rest., Inc., 165 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Personal Representative OF the Estate OF John Edward Starling v. Fisherman's Pier, Inc., 401 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Lorenz v. Jiminez, 172 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1965)
- Strickland v. Roberts, 382 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Cannon v. State ex rel. Jensen, 172 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1965)