After an appeals court docket rejected a $28.6 million judgment, the Florida Supreme Court on Monday mentioned it will take up a case involving catastrophic accidents suffered by an 18-year-old girl after two Tallahassee bars served underage drinkers.
Justices agreed to a request by the guardian for Jacquelyn Faircloth to take up a dispute that focuses on a judgment against Potbelly’s, a bar close to the Florida State University campus.
Faircloth was injured when she was hit by a pickup truck in 2014 whereas crossing a avenue about 2 a.m., in line with court docket information. The driver of the truck, 20-year-old Devon Dwyer, had been drinking at Potbelly’s, whereas Faircloth had been drinking at one other institution, Cantina 101.
Faircloth’s guardian filed a lawsuit against homeowners of each companies, alleging that they illegally served alcohol to underage individuals and precipitated the accident. A circuit decide issued a default judgment against Cantina 101 for failing to reply and later entered a $28.6 million judgment collectively and severally against the bars, which meant each may very well be legally chargeable for paying all the damages.
But in an attraction, the homeowners of Potbelly’s argued, in half, that the circuit decide had improperly rejected what is called a “comparative fault” protection, which might result in figuring out a share of fault — and probably lowering Potbelly’s legal responsibility.
In a 2-1 choice, a panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed, saying the case concerned a query of negligence, which might permit for comparative fault.
The majority choice, written by Judge Thomas Winokur and joined by Judge Timothy Osterhaus, mentioned that “because Potbelly’s is derivatively liable for Dwyer’s wrongdoing, the fact finder does not balance fault between a willful actor and a negligent one. Potbelly’s was entitled to have the jury compare its fault (derived from Dwyer) to Cantina 101’s (whose fault was derived from Faircloth), or if circumstances permitted, to Faircloth’s itself.”
But Judge Scott Makar dissented, writing that the allegations concerned “intentional misconduct” by Potbelly’s and never negligence. Dwyer was an worker of Potbelly’s.
“The trial judge acted properly in denying Potbelly’s attempts to lessen its fault, and thereby liability, for its willful and unlawful provision of alcohol to its underage employee who became drunk and caused catastrophic harm,” Makar wrote. “The Legislature did not intend its comparative negligence statutes to treat negligent actions and intentional, criminal acts — such as Potbelly’s — in the same way; instead, it made clear that comparative negligence has no role when intentional conduct is alleged and proven.”
The Tallahassee-based appeals court docket urged the Supreme Court to take up the case, a transfer often called “certifying” a query to justices.
In a petition filed in July at the Supreme Court, attorneys for Faircloth’s guardian argued that the bars promoting alcohol to the underage drinkers needs to be thought-about an “intentional tort,” somewhat than negligence.
“If, as petitioner (Faircloth’s guardian) contends, the substance of its claim is an intentional tort, the district court’s opinion conflicts with the Legislature’s determination that comparative fault principles do not apply to such claims,” the petition mentioned. “Rather, the Legislature determined that defendants who engage in intentional misconduct must shoulder the entire cost of harms caused by that misconduct.”
But in an reply transient filed in August, attorneys for Potbelly’s urged the Supreme Court to show down the case and mentioned the appeals court docket had correctly adopted a authorized precedent.
“The opinion correctly relied on this (Supreme) Court’s precedent to conclude that serving alcohol to patrons under the lawful drinking age is not an intentional tort that prohibits applying comparative fault principles,” the bar’s attorneys, together with former Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero, wrote.
The case has drawn consideration from Florida State University and the University of Florida, which submitted a discover in July that mentioned they plan to file a transient in help of Faircloth’s guardian at the Supreme Court.
“FSU and UF face many challenges in their responsibilities to their large student populations, which include thousands of students who are not of lawful drinking age,” the universities, whose attorneys embrace former Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Bell, mentioned in the discover.
“One of the most serious challenges facing the universities, like all colleges and universities, is unlawful, underage drinking, intoxication and alcohol abuse. FSU and UF have each devoted substantial resources and engaged in concerted and significant efforts to address the public health crisis on their campuses posed by unlawful, underage drinking, intoxication and alcohol abuse.”
The Supreme Court on Monday didn’t instantly schedule arguments.