The text of the law determines when an injured individual may hold a third party liable. Under Florida law, victims may qualify to pursue a lawsuit against two categories of parties: Those who serve alcohol to a person under the legal drinking age and Those who serve alcohol to known alcoholics. Let’s consider each category separately. The Willful Sale of Alcohol to a Minor The statute uses willful here. Simple negligence does not create liability. For servers to face liability under the state’s dram shop law, they must know that the person is under the legal drinking age. The plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant had this knowledge using circumstantial or direct evidence. For example, a teenager demands a drink at a bar. The teenager appears youthful, he wears a high school letterman jacket, and other factors indicate his young age. In this situation, the bartender may face liability if they fail to ID the teen, the teenager drinks alcohol, and causes an accident after leaving the bar. Sufficient circumstantial evidence might exist to establish that the server knew the teenager's age and willfully ignored it. However, suppose the teenager looked older and the bartender failed to recognize a fake ID. In that case, this alone does not constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence of willfully serving someone underage. Serving, selling, or allowing the service of alcohol to a person under 21 is a second-degree misdemeanor under Florida Statute § 562.11. It involves criminal penalties of a jail sentence of as much as 60 days and fines of up to $500. When a minor who drinks alcohol works for an employer who allows the minor to drink on the premises, the employer can face a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by one year in jail and a fine of $1,000. Additionally, anyone the intoxicated teenager injures can hold third parties liable for serving the underage individual. Habitually Addicted Individuals Most people might assume they can recognize someone with chronic alcohol addiction. However, Florida's dram shop law imposes a precise definition of habitually addicted. The legal definition stems from a 1951 case, Todd v. Todd, 56 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 1951). In it, the Florida Supreme Court held that someone whose habit of indulgence in strong drink is so fixed that he cannot resist getting drunk anytime the temptation is offered, with the inebriety frequent, excessive, and the dominant passion. Case law over the years has further fleshed out this definition. Courts have determined that a plaintiff may introduce circumstantial evidence to prove that the vendor knew the person they served was a habitual drunkard. For example, the plaintiff may introduce evidence that shows the vendor was familiar with the person’s drinking habits. If a bartender serves someone many drinks on many occasions, seeing they become drunk regularly, it might be evidence of third-party liability. However, these cases are extraordinarily fact-specific. Your attorney can advise you whether you might seek compensation from an establishment for overserving someone with an addiction.