C. B. PREVATT, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY MCCLENNAN, 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.
In this personal injury case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict against a tavern owner who illegally sold alcohol to minors who subsequently engaged in a fight, resulting in the plaintiff being shot. The court held that the violation of the statute prohibiting sales to minors constitutes negligence per se and establishes proximate causation.
The tavern owner is liable for injuries resulting from the illegal sale of alcohol to minors. The violation of the statute prohibiting such sales constitutes negligence per se, and the proximate cause of the injury is the illegal sale rather than the consumption of alcohol by the minors.
“Here, the statute forbidding the sale of liquor to minors was violated, and constitutes negligence per se; the statute that makes it a crime to sell intoxicants to minors was doubtless passed to prevent the harm that can come or be caused by one of immaturity by imbibing such liquors.”
Establishes that violation of the statute prohibiting sales to minors constitutes negligence per se and was enacted to prevent the type of harm that occurred.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff was injured by a gunshot at the defendant's tavern on June 14, 1964. Two minors, Moore and Timmons, quarreled at the tavern, left briefly, a…
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 Dram Shop Act cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the Defendant below from an adverse judgment of a jury in a personal injury action.
The facts are that Plaintiff was injured by a gun shot during a fight between two other patrons in Defendant’s tavern.
On June 14, 1964, Plaintiff went to Defendant’s tavern at about 11:15 P.M., and after he was there about five minutes he observed two persons quarreling at two tables behind him. Shortly thereafter these two left the tavern, but returned in about fifteen minutes. A short time later the quarreling began again and they began throwing beer bottles. Following this Tim-*781mons, one of the two, drew a pistol and began shooting at Moore who ran. Plaintiff was struck in the back by one of the bullets when Moore attempted to use Plaintiff as a shield.
The testimony was conflicting as to whether Moore or Timmons had several beers or liquor in Defendant’s tavern, but the witness Amaro testified he saw both Moore and Timmons with a beer, and if the evidence be taken at face value, we may reasonably conclude that these two who were in the tavern and started the fight were not there drinking water.
Physically, the bar consists of three large rooms and a package store. The establishment could seat several hundred people, the tavern is operated at night by five waitresses, and the one man who manages the package store. No persons were stationed in the various rooms to preserve order. On some occasions they serve as many as 1,000 people in a night.
The two, namely, Moore and Timmons, who caused the trouble were minors.
During the time that Timmons and Moore were inside and outside the tavern, they Were argumentative and unruly.
During the arguments or shooting, no one sought to control the problem.
The record shows that the participants in the shooting had been cursing, drinking and generally disorderly.
Here, the statute forbidding the sale of liquor to minors was violated, and constitutes negligence per se; the statute that makes it a crime to sell intoxicants to minors was doubtless passed to prevent the harm that can come or be caused by one of immaturity by imbibing such liquors. The very atmosphere surrounding the sale should make it foreseeable to any person that trouble for someone was in the making.
The proximate cause of the injury is the sale rather than the consumption.
Davis v. Shiappacossee, infra, is but one of a number of recent cases holding that in the absence of a Dram Shop Act, a liquor vendor may be liable for consequential results of illegal sales.
The cases of Davis v. Shiappacossee, Fla., 155 So.2d 365, and Tamiami Gun Shop v. Klein, Fla.App., 109 So.2d 189, set the law on this in Florida.
The lower court is affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Migliore v. Crown Liquors OF Broward, Inc., 448 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1984)…ALDERMAN, Chief Justice. We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Migliore v. Crown Liquors of Broward, Inc., 425 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), which directly and expressly conflicts with Prevatt v. McClennan, 201 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). The issue before us is whether, prior to the effective date of section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981),* a vendor who sells intoxicating beverages to a minor contrary to section 562.11, Florida Statutes (Supp.1978), may be liabl…1 / 2
-
Bankston v. Brennan, 507 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1987)…c beverages under section 562.11 may maintain a cause of action against the vendor for injuries resulting therefrom. On the precise issue before the Court in Migliore, we adopted the Second District Court of Appeal’s holding in Prevatt v. McClennan, 201 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), and found that a vendor who sells alcoholic beverages to a minor in violation of section 562.11 may be liable to third persons injured by the minor’s operation of a motor vehicle. In so holding, we acknowledged: Moreover, contra…1 / 2
-
Ellis v. N.G.N. OF Tampa, Inc., 586 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1991)…1983). See also Gerry M. Rinden, Judicial Prohibition? Erosion of the Common Law Rule of Non-liability for Those Who Dispense Alcohol, 34 Drake L.Rev. 937 (1984-85). Subsequent to Davis, the Second District Court of Appeal, in Prevatt v. McClennan, 201 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), applied [*1046] our Davis decision in considering another situation where a vendor illegally sold alcoholic beverages to a minor. In that case, the minor became intoxicated while in the vendor’s establishment, drew a pistol, and…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Auflick v. Louie L. Wainwright, 155 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1963)
- Tamiami GUN Shop v. Klein, 109 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)