$______ VERDICT - DRAM SHOP - INTOXICATED DRIVER SERVED ALCOHOL AT DEFENDANT DRAM SHOP BEFORE SPEEDING WRONG WAY ON HIGHWAY WITHOUT HEADLIGHTS AND CRASHING HEAD-ON INTO VEHICLE WITH 3 PASSENGERS, KILLING 23-YEAR-OLD MEDICAL STUDENT, PERMANENTLY DISABLING HER BROTHER, AND INJURING DRIVER/MOTHER.

• Pages: 2-3

Summaries with Trial Analysis

$95,527,108 VERDICT – DRAM SHOP – INTOXICATED DRIVER SERVED ALCOHOL AT

DEFENDANT DRAM SHOP BEFORE SPEEDING WRONG WAY ON HIGHWAY WITHOUT

HEADLIGHTS AND CRASHING HEAD-ON INTO VEHICLE WITH 3 PASSENGERS,

KILLING 23-YEAR-OLD MEDICAL STUDENT, PERMANENTLY DISABLING HER BROTHER,

AND INJURING DRIVER/MOTHER.

Miami-Dade County, FL

In this dram shop case, the plaintiff, the personal

representative of the decedent and guardian of

the incapacitated plaintiff, asserted that the

defendant bar served alcohol to a clearly

intoxicated person who then left the bar and was

involved in a collision that killed the plaintiff’s

daughter and rendered his son permanently

disabled. The defendant failed to respond or

defend against the plaintiff’s complaint.

On December 13, 2015, the plaintiffs’ decedent, a 23-

year-old woman, was a front seat passenger in her

mother’s car on her way to the airport to catch a flight to

her new student orientation at medical school. In the ve-

hicle with her were her mother, driving the vehicle, and

her brother, a backseat passenger. At the same time

the plaintiffs were driving northbound on I-95, an intoxi-

cated driver was speeding in excess of 70 mph the

wrong way in the northbound lanes.

The intoxicated driver had attended a holiday party at a

gym facility earlier in the evening where witnesses testi-

fied he was excessively intoxicated. After the party, when

he was already inebriated, the driver was seen drinking

alcohol at the defendant bar between 2:30 and 4:00

a.m. The intoxicated individual then drove, speeding,

the wrong way in the northbound lanes of I-95 without his

headlights on, with the gas pedal floored, and without

applying the brakes. He collided head-on with the plain-

tiffs’ vehicle, killing the decedent daughter on impact

and injuring her brother and mother, the driver and

passenger in the vehicle.

The plaintiff also proffered that Mr. Chavez was under

the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, with

an estimated blood alcohol level of between 0.157g/

100mL and 0.179 g/100mL. Finally, the plaintiff proffered

that Mr. Chavez was ultimately adjudicated guilty of ve-

hicular homicide and 3 counts of reckless driving.

As a result of the collision, the plaintiffs’ daughter was

killed and their son was rendered permanently incapaci-

tated and wheelchair-bound due to traumatic brain in-

jury. The plaintiff mother, also a passenger in the vehicle,

suffered a brain injury, fractures and underwent multiple

surgeries, from which she ultimately recovered. The

driver of the vehicle was found guilty of vehicular homi-

cide and three counts of reckless driving. The plaintiffs

sought damages from the defendant bar that last

served the driver, when he was visibly intoxicated, for the

wrongful death of their daughter and the permanent

disability of their son.

The plaintiff filed a motion for default against and, on

April 24, 2018, the default was entered. The matter went

to trial as to damages only.

The jury awarded damages in the amount of

$95,527,108 broken down as follows: $18,500,000 for

the plaintiff mother; $18,500,00 for the plaintiff father

and $58,527,108 for the plaintiff brother of the

decedent.

REFERENCE

Criales, et al. vs. The Georgetown Partnership, LLC, et al.

Case no. 2017-006062 CA; Judge Mark Blumstein, 06-

21-22.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Adam T. Rose and Thomas

Scolaro of Leesfield Scolaro, P.A. in Miami, FL.

Attorney for defendant: Thomas S. Ward of Rennert

Vogel Mandler & Rodriguez, P.A. in Miami, FL.

COMMENTARY

Following the verdict, the defendant moved to vacate the judgment

arguing that damages against the defendant were void since the

defendant was never served with the amended complaint; was

never served with the motion for clerk’s default; and was not given

notice or an opportunity to defend at the 3.5 hour jury trial for un-

liquidated damages that proceeded without the defendant’s

knowledge or participation.

The defendant asserted that the 8-figure judgment was particularly

absurd considering that the plaintiff also sought relief via identical

causes of action—Florida’s Wrongful Death Act and negligence—

against the co-defendant gym yet the co-defendant successfully ob-

tained a complete defense victory on summary judgment such that

the co-defendant was not liable to the plaintiff for any damages

and the plaintiff was liable to the co-defendant gym for its attor-

neys’ fees and costs. The defendant argued that, once the court va-

cates the void judgment against the defendant, should the plaintiff

subsequently decide to serve the defendant, it would likewise have

meritorious defenses to raise under Florida law.

2

Volume 32, Issue 9, September 2022

Reproduction in any form without the express permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited by law.

Subscribe Now