Motion for Summary Judgment. Mary Sabo suffered injuries in an automobile accident caused by Daniel Hoag, an intoxicated driver. Hoag had just left Peoples Restaurant after having consumed a large number of drinks. Sabo sued Peoples for damages,

Question

alleging that the restaurant had violated a state statute that provided that any person who "knowingly serves" an individual who is "habitually addicted" to alcohol may be held liable for any injuries or damages caused by the intoxication of that individual. In spite of evidence indicating that for the two years prior to the accident, Hoag had gone to Peoples twice a week and on each occasion had drunk liquor until he was intoxicated, the trial court granted Peoples' motion for summary judgment. The court held that Sabo had failed to show that Peoples had knowledge that Hoag was an alcoholic and the bar had therefore not "knowingly" served an alcohol addict. Sabo appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling, and Peoples appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Florida. Was summary judgment for Peoples appropriate in this case?

Answer 1

Motion for summary judgment
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. The evidence was sufficient to indicate that it was a question of fact whether the bar knew that Hoag was an alcoholic. Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate, and the case should proceed to trial. The court's one-page opinion in this case was mostly a summary of Hoag's drinking habits. Hoag had testified that over the two-year period prior to the accident, he (1) normally consumed a case of beer during the day while on his construction job; (2) drank hard liquor every evening at various bars; (3) went to Peoples twice a week, becoming overtly intoxicated on each occasion (exhibiting slurred speech, red eyes, and unsteady appearance); and (4) was well known to the bartenders at Peoples, who never refused to serve him on any occasion. Hoag stated that on the night of the accident, he had been served the equivalent of twenty shots of hard liquor and was so intoxicated that he did not recall leaving the bar, eating dinner, or much about the accident. Given this record, the court concluded that "the circumstantial evidence adduced was sufficient to permit a jury to find that the employees of Peoples knew of Hoag's addiction, based on his repeated behavior and appearance."