United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Butler
| Decision Date | 16 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2650,76-2650 |
| Citation | 359 So.2d 498 |
| Parties | UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, William J. Snyder and David A. Snyder, Appellants, v. William F. BUTLER, as Administrator of the Estate of Steven A. Butler, and William F. Butler, Individually, by and through the Administrator of the Estate of Steven A. Butler et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Maron E. Lovell of D'Aiuto, Walker & Buckmaster, Orlando, for appellants.
J. Richard Caldwell, Jr., and Ira William McCollum, Jr., of Pitts, Eubanks, Ross & Rumberger, P.A., Orlando, for appellees Leland Robar, Rita Robar and Cambridge Mutual Fire Ins. Co.
Steven A. Butler was killed while riding as a passenger in an automobile owned by Appellant, William J. Snyder and driven by his son, Appellant David A. Snyder, a minor. The accident happened after David Snyder and Steven Butler had been social guests at a party at the home of Appellees Rita and Leland Robar, where alcoholic beverages were served to the guests. David Snyder became intoxicated and while driving home with Steven Butler as a passenger he rolled the car over, killing Butler.
William F. Butler, as administrator of his son's estate, and individually, brought this wrongful death action against William and David Snyder and their insurance carrier, and against Rita and Leland Robar and their insurance carrier. The Snyders filed a third party complaint against the Robars and their insurance carrier for contribution. The trial court dismissed the third party complaint with prejudice and this appeal ensued.
In their third party complaint appellants alleged that the Robars knew or should have known David was a minor, yet they served him alcoholic beverages in violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes (1973); that the Robars knew or should have known David arrived at their home by automobile and that he would leave driving an automobile; that the Robars breached their duty to the public by providing alcoholic beverages to a minor knowing he would become intoxicated and drive on the public streets; and that the Robars' negligence was the proximate cause of Butler's death.
Appellants contend their third party complaint stated a cause of action against the Robars arising out of their violation of Section 562.11, Florida Statutes (1973), and the Robars' negligence regardless of the statute in serving alcoholic beverages to a minor knowing he might become intoxicated and drive on the public highway.
At common law one injured by an intoxicated person had no cause of action against the dispenser of the intoxicating liquor, and that has been the general rule in this country in the absence of statute. 1 The rationale ascribed to that rule is that the drinking of the liquor and not the serving of it is the proximate cause of the injury. 2 Of course most states now have statutes making it a crime to sell, serve or give alcoholic beverages to minors. Furthermore, many states have enacted Dramshop Acts or Civil Damage Acts to afford civil damages to persons injured by one who is intoxicated against the unlawful seller or dispenser of alcoholic beverages. 3 In the main, these acts have been interpreted as fixing liability only on those who are in the business of dispensing intoxicants as opposed to private persons serving intoxicants socially. 4
The applicable Florida Statute prohibiting the dispensation of alcoholic beverages to minors provides in pertinent part:
The first question we must resolve in this case is whether the Legislature intended to impose liability on a social host for serving alcoholic beverages to a minor. As was pointed out above most of the cases refuse to extend liability that far, some even declining to interpret the Dramshop and Civil Damage Acts that broadly. The language of the above quoted statute sounds all inclusive and yet most courts which have treated the question have interpreted similar language to be restricted to persons associated with a business establishment 5 dispersing alcoholic beverages. Additionally, there are several other reasons Section 562.11(1), Florida Statutes (1973...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alegria v. Payonk
...Wolf, 122 Ariz. 567, 596 P.2d 705 (Ariz.App.1979)); Nelson v. Steffens, 170 Conn. 356, 365 A.2d 1174 (1976); United Services Auto Ass'n. v. Butler, 359 So.2d 498 (Fla.App.1978); Keaton v. Kroger Co., supra ; Holmes v. Circo, supra ; Marchiondo v. Roper, 90 N.M. 367, 563 P.2d 1160 (N.M.1977)......
-
Overbaugh v. McCutcheon
...656 (1965); Kowal v. Hofher, 181 Conn. 355, 436 A.2d 1 (1980); Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d 554 (Del.1981); United Services Auto Ass'n v. Butler, 359 So.2d 498 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978); Keaton v. Kroger Co., 143 Ga.App. 23, 237 S.E.2d 443 (1977); Miller v. Moran, 96 Ill.App.3d 596, 52 Ill.Dec.......
-
Martin v. Watts
...high school graduation party, it was negligence per se to furnish liquor to a minor.) No Cause of Action United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Butler, 359 So.2d 498 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978). (Deferring to the State legislature, the Court noted that historically there has not been a common law a......
-
Garren v. Cummings & McCrady, Inc.
...Carr v. Turner, 238 Ark. 889, 385 S.W.2d 656 (1965); Kowal v. Hofher, 181 Conn. 355, 436 A.2d 1 (1980); United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Butler, 359 So.2d 498 (Fla.App.1978); Belding v. Johnson, 86 Ga. 177, 12 S.E. 304 (1890), but see Sutter v. Hutchings, 254 Ga. 194, 327 S.E.2d 716 (198......