Bryant ex rel. Bryant v. Pistulka

366 So. 2d 479, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13955
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 11, 1979
DocketNo. JJ-399
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 366 So. 2d 479 (Bryant ex rel. Bryant v. Pistulka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bryant ex rel. Bryant v. Pistulka, 366 So. 2d 479, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13955 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order of the Circuit Court of Duval County dismissing plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice.

In their second amended complaint appellants sought damages for alleged negligence against sixteen defendants. Since the filing of this appeal, appellants have settled with fourteen of the original defendants and the appeal has been dismissed as to them, leaving only the original defendants, Pistulka and White, as appellees.

The second amended complaint contained eight counts, only five of which are now pertinent, viz counts one, two, three, seven and eight. We reverse as to counts one, two, seven and eight, and affirm as to count three. In so doing we hold that counts one, two, seven and eight each states a cause of action sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss but that count three must fall because it is erroneously predicated upon an alleged violation of Section 562.11 F.S. (1973) which statute was designed only to regulate licensed vendors of alcoholic beverages upon the licensed premises of such vendors. State v. Vocelle, 159 Fla. 88, 31 So.2d 52 (1947); Bryant v. Jax Liquors, 352 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1977); United Services Automobile Association et al. v. Butler, 359 So.2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1978). Therefore, as to count three of the second amended complaint, the learned trial court was eminently correct in dismissing same with prejudice, inasmuch as it is impossible for appellants to base a cause of action upon that statute.

Reversed as to counts one, two, seven and eight. Affirmed as to count three. Remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., MELVIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., .Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bonds v. Fleming
539 So. 2d 583 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Bankston v. Brennan
507 So. 2d 1385 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
366 So. 2d 479, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-ex-rel-bryant-v-pistulka-fladistctapp-1979.