Question

A Florida law provides that any person who “knowingly serves” a person “habitually addicted” to alcohol may be liable for an injury caused by the intoxication of that person. Hoag was driving while intoxicated when his car struck Sabo’s car. Sabo suffered injuries as a result. Before the accident, Hoag had consumed many drinks at Peoples Restaurant. Sabo sued Peoples, alleging that the restaurant violated the statute. Peoples filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to grant a judgment in its favor without a trial because it had no knowledge of Hoag’s drinking habits. The court most likely: a. granted the motion for summary judgment because there were no questions of fact about Hoag’s drinking habits. b. denied the motion for summary judgment because there were questions of fact about the restaurant’s knowledge of Hoag’s drinking habits that had to be determined by a trial. c. granted the motion for summary judgment unless Sabo produced evidence of Hoag’s drinking habits. d. denied the motion for summary judgment unless Peoples produced evidence of Hoag’s drinking habits.

Answer 1

The answer is: C. denied the motion for summary judgment because there were questions of fact about the restaurant's knowledge of Hoag's drinking habits that had to be determined by a trial.

In order for the motion to be granted, Sabo need to provide the court with solid evidence that People's restaurant purposefully make Hoag drunk in order to cause harm to him.

Since Sabo could not provide such evidence, all the responsibilities for the accident only fall to Hoag's hands. If Sabo wanted to sue someone for the damage, Hoag s the only target available for him.