Cases from cite.case.law:

HAYES ROBERTSON GROUP, INC. v. CHERRY,, 260 So. 3d 1126 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . A review of the legislative history of section 768.125, as enacted in 1980; the separate misdemeanor . . . Initially, section 768.125 was to be numbered 562.51 to follow the "habitual drunkard" statute, section . . . Though the term "habitual drunkard" was eliminated in the enactment of section 768.125 (but the term . . . The jury instructions included a reading of section 768.125 and a charge summarizing the 768.125 claim . . . The interrogatory verdict on 768.125 was composite: the jury was not asked separate questions regarding . . .

SALERNO, M. v. DEL MAR FINANCIAL SERVICE, LLC P. A., 248 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . Appellant attempts to state a cause of action based upon section 768.125, Florida Statutes (2013), but . . . dismiss the second amended complaint on grounds that no cause of action could be stated because section 768.125 . . . Section 768.125 provides: Liability for injury or damage resulting from intoxication A person who sells . . . complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, agreeing with the employers that section 768.125 . . . The Estate first argues that section 768.125 does not shield the employers from liability. . . .

GONZALEZ, v. STONEYBROOK WEST GOLF CLUB, LLC, INC., 225 So. 3d 891 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . against Stoneybrook pursuant to Florida’s reverse dram shop liability statute, codified at section 768.125 . . .

OKEECHOBEE AERIE FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES, INC. v. WILDE, 199 So. 3d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Appel-lees”), sued the Eagles for damages, alleging they were negligent and in violation of section 768.125 . . . known to be “a person habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages,” per section 768.125 . . . The Eagles suggest that the only cause of action here is under section 768.125, Florida Statutes. . . . Section 768.125 says, in relevant part: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to. a person . . . From its clear language, section '768.125 does not create a cause of action. . . .

DE LA TORRE, v. FLANIGAN S ENTERPRISES, INC. d b a s, 187 So. 3d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that section 768.125, Florida Statutes (2011), . insulated . . . Appellee moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the suit was precluded by section 768.125, Florida . . . The common law rule, codified by section 768.125, absolves sellers from blame for the drunken acts of . . . Specifically, section. 768.125 states: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person . . . The Second District held that the suit was precluded by section 768.125. Hall, 157 So.3d at 331. . . .

EVANS, v. McCABE INC. d b a s,, 168 So. 3d 238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . elements to establish a claim under Florida’s reverse dram shop liability statute, codified at section 768.125 . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (2009), provides in full: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic . . . hable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such minor or person. § 768.125 . . .

HALL, v. WEST s a s LLC, a s a, 157 So. 3d 329 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Section 768.125,' Florida Statutes (2008), is at play in this case: Liability for injury or damage resulting . . . In dissent, Judge Diamantis cogently explained that the majority impermissibly circumvented section 768.125 . . . Recognizing the legislature’s constitutional prerogative to set social policy, as it did in section 768.125 . . . 1200, 1203 (Fla.1997) (noting that where the legislature has acted to restrict liability under section 768.125 . . . Because section 768.125 bars Mr. . . .

L. CASE R. E. v. B. NEWMAN, B. Ni s a d b a, 154 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . judgment in turn, arguing the appellants could not make out a prima facie case of any violation of section 768.125 . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (2010), provides: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages . . . Tampa, Inc., 586 So.2d 1042, 1047-48 (Fla.1991) — “that, although limited by the provisions of section 768.125 . . .

BOTKIN, v. TOKIO MARINE NICHIDO FIRE INSURANCE CO. LTD., 956 F. Supp. 2d 795 (E.D. Ky. 2013)

. . . Florida Statute § 768.125 provides in relevant part: "A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages . . . Stat. § 768.125. . . . .

WEBER, ESTATE OF WEBER, v. MARINO PARKING SYSTEMS, INC. a LLC, d b a a, 100 So. 3d 729 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 768.125, Fla. . . .

V. FURRY, H. v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, d. b. a., 685 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 768.125, as well as various state law negligence claims. . . . Stat. § 768.125 provides in full: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person of . . .

V. FURRY, H. v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, d. b. a., 685 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 768.125, as well as various state law negligence claims. . . . Stat. § 768.125 provides in full: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person of . . .

R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. GROSSMAN,, 96 So. 3d 917 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . E.g., § 768.125, Fla. Stat. (1980). . . .

COOK, v. MILLERCOORS, LLC,, 872 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (M.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . Furthermore, § 768.125 of the Florida Statutes limits liability for the sale of alcoholic beverages with . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes, absolves purveyors of alcohol from liability, with exceptions for . . . But in any event, the applicability of § 768.125 is strictly an academic question. . . . The Florida Supreme Court has explained that § 768.125 “effectively codified the original common law . . . good law “in situations not governed by section 768.125.” . . .

FOUNDERS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. TOME, N., 878 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (M.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . the service of alcohol to Weston Tome at The Arena Sports Bar in violation of Florida Statute section 768.125 . . . & Grill and d/b/a The Coliseum Center for Performing Arts,” alleging liability pursuant to section 768.125 . . .

COOK, v. MILLERCOORS, LLC,, 829 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (M.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . § 768.125. Cook has not alleged that either of the exceptions applies in this case. . . . Stat. § 768.125. . . . Stat. § 768.125 limits liability for the sale of alcoholic beverages with express exceptions for two . . . Stat. § 768.125. 658 So.2d at 1066. Generally, proximate cause is a question of fact. . . .

HETHERLY v. SAWGRASS TAVERN INC., 975 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . being deliberately drunk is not a defense to a crime, on what basis should Judges read into section 768.125 . . . STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. . § 768.125, Fla. . . .

M. QUARANTELLO, v. T. LEROY,, 977 So. 2d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Stat. (2007) (using the terminology, “shall have no cause of action”); § 768.125, Fla. . . .

KAMINER, v. ECKERD CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, INC. f k a a k a a L. P. a f k a, 966 So. 2d 452 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . summary judgment for the alcohol vendor; however, liability was based on a specific statute, section 768.125 . . .

LUQUE v. ALE HOUSE MANAGEMENT, INC., 962 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . The Luques’ suit against Ale House claims that Ale House breached its duty to Lu-que under section 768.125 . . . Additionally, Defendant argued at the hearing that section 768.125 was enacted for the protection of . . . As section 768.125 does not provide a cause of action, Mr. Luque’s claim against [Ale House] fails. . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (2003), provides: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages . . . In “limiting” or modifying the underlying action, section 768.125 now delineates the elements that a . . .

MURPHY, v. SOUTHERN MUTUAL MANAGEMENT CORP. d b a, 936 So. 2d 786 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . bar where Centlivre had started drinking at 9:00 a.m. that morning, alleging a violation of section 768.125 . . . from which a jury could determine that the vendor had sufficient knowledge to have violated section 768.125 . . .

ESTATE OF P. MASSAD, WILSON, v. GRANZOW B., 886 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Granzow argues that section 768.125, Florida Statutes (2003), acts as a “complete limitation on liability . . . Granzow further argues that, because section 768.125 renders social hosts “immune under common law and . . . In 1980, as alcohol vendors’ civil liability continued to increase, the legislature enacted section 768.125 . . . The supreme court has viewed section 768.125 as “a limitation on the liability of vendors of intoxicating . . . When the supreme court has written on the relationship between section 768.125 and social hosts, it has . . .

R. GROBMAN, M. D. R. M. D. P. A. SSJ d b a d b a v. POSEY,, 863 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991) provided that a “culpable vendor becomes vicariously liable . . .

J. FRITSCH, v. ROCKY BAYOU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., 799 So. 2d 433 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . despite knowing him to be “habitually addicted to the use of ... alcoholic beverages” under section 768.125 . . . private, members-only, not-for profit corporation, Appellee is immune from liability under section 768.125 . . . Brennan, 507 So.2d 1385 (Fla.1987) (§ 768.125 did not create cause of action against social host for . . . Although section 768.125 generally protects from liability for injury or damage “[a] person who sells . . . In summary, Appellee is not immune from liability under section 768.125; and the selling and serving . . .

GRAHAM, v. W. STEPHENS,, 779 So. 2d 649 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Compare § 768.125, Fla. . . .

FLEURIDOR, v. SURF CAF, 775 So. 2d 411 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes, provides A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a . . .

VORONSOFF, v. RESPECTABLE STREET, INC. a d b a a k a d b a W. d b a s a f k a a k a TELSI, 754 So. 2d 808 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . of a judgment on the pleadings based upon appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of section 768.125 . . . K-Mart Corp., 697 So.2d 1200 (Fla.1997) does not render section 768.125 unconstitutional. AFFIRMED. . . .

SIPES, E. v. ALBERTSON S INC., 728 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . .; § 768.125(Fla.Stat.l997). . . . of liability for non-willful sales to minors, it has kept in place, through its enactment of section 768.125 . . . Stanage and Bryant both involved facts which predated the legislature’s enactment of section 768.125, . . . indicated that such a vendor may be liable for injuries resulting from the minor’s intoxication. § 768.125 . . .

KIRKMAN ROAD SPORTS PUB AND RESTAURANT, INC. v. DEMPSEY,, 723 So. 2d 384 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . , d/b/a JB’s Sports Bar and Grill, in regard to its liability to the plaintiffs pursuant to section 768.125 . . . The car crashed, injuring Nieves, and he sued the restaurants pursuant to section 768.125, Florida Statutes . . .

KITCHEN, v. K- MART CORPORATION,, 697 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1997)

. . . The plaintiffs sued the social host, alleging a violation of section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1983) . . . Section 768.125 states: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person of lawful drinking . . . response to this judicial recognition of a vendor’s civil liability, the legislature had enacted section 768.125 . . . s cause of action for common law negligence because it found that, similar to the effect of section 768.125 . . . The language contained in sections 790.17 and 790.151, unlike the language in section 768.125, does not . . .

A. WILLIAMS, v. ANHEUSER- BUSCH, INC., 957 F. Supp. 1246 (M.D. Fla. 1997)

. . . Plaintiff claims that Florida Statute section 768.125 gave rise to a duty on the part of Defendant to . . . safety records for the month, Plaintiff attempts to establish a duty under Florida Statutes section 768.125 . . .

STARITA, v. WEST PUTNAM POST NUMBER VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF UNITED STATES, INC. a, 678 So. 2d 521 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . in question knew or had reason to know he was “drunk or intoxicated in direct violation of section 768.125 . . .

WAL- MART STORES, INC. a a v. McDONALD, III,, 676 So. 2d 12 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Section 768.125 indicates that the culpable vendor becomes vicariously hable for the damages caused by . . .

R. LEIGH, v. DON BAILEY CARPETS, INC., 662 So. 2d 436 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . Bailey violated any duty under section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1993) regarding the serving of alcohol . . .

PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC. v. AUSTIN, H., 658 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . unlawfully sold alcohol to Austin on the date of the collision in violation of sections 562.11 and 768.125 . . . the only cause of action available to Wurtz was a cause of action based on Florida Statute section 768.125 . . . Based on the provisions of 768.125, we agree with Publix that Count III, which is merely a negligence . . . In doing so, we acknowledged that a “willful” sale under section 768.125 requires knowledge that the . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991), provides: 768.125 Liability for injury or damage resulting . . .

F. RUSSO, v. PLANT CITY MOOSE LODGE NO., 656 So. 2d 957 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . She argues that under section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991), the Moose Lodge is liable for the death . . . Such proof is necessary under section 768.125. Russo relies on Roster v. . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991) provides in relevant part: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic . . .

PERSEN, v. SOUTHLAND CORPORATION,, 656 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1995)

. . . 1994), wherein the following question was certified to be of great public importance: DOES SECTION 768.125 . . . The issue here is whether Southland can be held liable, under section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991 . . . Section 768.125 limits liability by codifying the original common law rule absolving vendors of alcoholic . . . In applying the section 768.125 exceptions, we must look to the language of the statute as well as the . . . Section 768.125 distinguishes between one who “willfully and unlawfully sells or furnishes” alcoholic . . .

V. NIEVES, v. CAMACHO CLOTHES, INC. d b a O. C. s,, 645 So. 2d 507 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . White’s, Inc., alleging that the two corporations violated sections 562.11(l)(a) and 768.125, Florida . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991), provides: Liability for injury or damage resulting from intoxication . . . The court then construed the later enacted section 768.125 to be a statute limiting the liability of . . .

BARDY, v. WALT DISNEY WORLD COMPANY,, 643 So. 2d 46 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . I respectfully dissent because, in my view, this case is controlled by section 768.125, Florida Statutes . . . Brennan, 507 So.2d 1385 (Fla.1987), our supreme court concluded that the provisions of section 768.125 . . . The legislature has evidenced, through chapter 562 and section 768.125 for example, a desire to make . . . If section 768.125 is to be amended, it must be done legislatively, not judicially. . . . Section 768.125 (formerly section 562.51) became effective on May 23, 1980. . . .

F. COKER, v. WAL- MART STORES, INC. a, 642 So. 2d 774 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . considered the liability of liquor vendors who sold alcoholic beverages in contravention of section 768.125 . . .

PERSEN v. SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, a s a, 640 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . action arose out of an alcohol related automobile accident and 7-11’s alleged violation of section 768.125 . . . Plaintiffs also allege that The Southland Corporation violated section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991 . . . Section 768.125 states the general rule that a person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a . . . Appellants argue that section 768.125 is ambiguous with regard to the meaning of the term “serve” in . . . According to appellants, section 768.125 must be construed to encompass liability for any commercial . . .

CARROLL AIR SYSTEMS, INC. a v. GREENBAUM,, 629 So. 2d 914 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . any event, the employer cannot be liable for the furnishing of liquor to its employee, citing section 768.125 . . . Mercury Motors, where the fault of the employer is serving alcoholic beverages to an employee, section 768.125 . . . Gracewood Fruit Company, 559 So.2d 217 (Fla.1990), discusses an employer’s liability under section 768.125 . . .

O NEALE, O v. HERSHOFF, Ed, 634 So. 2d 644 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The majority opinion determines that the trial court interpreted section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991 . . . Since section 768.125 is a limiting statute, and since the appellant had ten months to allege facts sufficient . . . On summary judgment, one of the appel-lees argued that under section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991) . . . The trial court correctly applied a narrow interpretation to section 768.125. In Migliore v. . . . Thereafter, the supreme court explained that the Legislature had passed section 768.125, which limited . . . The question before us is the proper interpretation of section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1991). . . . selling or furnishing alcohol to the other minor occupants of the ear, within the meaning of section 768.125 . . . applies to a person who ‘‘willfully and unlawfully sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages” to a minor. § 768.125 . . .

S. ECHEVERRI, v. SAGA BAY COMPANY d b a a B., 624 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . The complaint fails to state a cause of action against Burgin, individually, for violation of section 768.125 . . .

R. HUGHES, INC. a d b a v. M. MITCHELL,, 617 So. 2d 767 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . correctly recognizes that, in order to recover on her claim that appellant violated sections 562.11(1) and 768.125 . . . Section 768.125, Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

ROSTER, v. MOULTON, Jr., 602 So. 2d 975 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . The complaint also alleged that Nick’s Bar violated section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1988), when it . . . general denial and filed a motion for summary judgment on two grounds: It was not liable under section 768.125 . . . Appellant argues that section 768.125 requires a strict construction, because it purports to limit a . . .

ELLIS, v. N. G. N. OF TAMPA, INC., 586 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1991)

. . . The complaint also alleged that the provisions of section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1987), authorized . . . N.G.N. and Nissen moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that: (1) section 768.125 does not provide . . . The district court explained that a class of persons to be protected under section 768.125 includes the . . . In reaching this conclusion, the district court of appeal determined that sections 562.50 and 768.125 . . . Ketner, 54 Tenn.App. 656, 393 S.W.2d 755 (1964). . § 768.125, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

BENNETT, v. GODFATHER S PIZZA, INC., 570 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Restaurant, Inc., 165 So.2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 172 So.2d 597 (Fla.1965); see also § 768.125 . . .

L. DIXON v. SAUNDERS, Jr. d b a, 565 So. 2d 802 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . appellants sued the bowling alley seeking to recover damages for their daughter’s death under section 768.125 . . . to willfulness, an element which must be established before liability can be imposed under section 768.125 . . . They contended below, as they argue now on appeal, that the term “furnish” in section 768.125 includes . . . As the supreme court pointed out in Migliore, the fact that section 768.125 was amended after judicial . . .

SABO, v. SHAMROCK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 566 So. 2d 267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . knowledge that Hoag was habitually addicted to the use of alcoholic beverages, as required by section 768.125 . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1983) provides: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages . . . or person, (emphasis supplied) The issue in this case is whether the knowledge required by section 768.125 . . . This is a case of first impression with regard to the application of section 768.125 to establish liability . . . We can conceive of no policy reason for treating the proof of knowledge required by section 768.125 for . . . The constitutionality of that part of section 768.125 relating to liability for “knowingly” serving alcoholic . . .

ELLIS, D. v. N. G. N. OF TAMPA, INC. G., 561 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . The complaint sets forth the relevant facts and also states, tracking the language of section 768.125 . . . The appellees moved to have the complaint dismissed claiming that section 768.125 does not provide a . . . Section 768.125, on the other hand, addresses only the civil remedy and omits any mention of a “written . . . She also contends that section 768.125 itself provides a separate cause of action so that a habitual . . . The present section 768.125 was originally enacted as section 562.51. Ch. 80-37, Laws of Fla. . . . .

DOWELL, v. GRACEWOOD FRUIT COMPANY,, 559 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1990)

. . . The disposition of this case turns on the construction to be given section 768.125, Florida Statutes . . . However, in Bankston, this Court reviewed the circumstances under which section 768.125 had been enacted . . . serving alcoholic beverages to a minor, the opinion unmistakably rejected the contention that section 768.125 . . . Several legislative sessions have passed since our decision in Bankston, but no amendments to section 768.125 . . .

TUTTLE v. MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD. a M. a a, 551 So. 2d 477 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (Supp.1980), however, limits liability of vendors of intoxicating beverages . . . Munford, Inc., 451 So.2d 480 (Fla.1984), the supreme court held that section 768.125 requires that the . . .

D. GORMAN, v. ALBERTSON S, INC., 519 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Gorman’s amended complaint alleged that Albert-son’s was liable to him pursuant to section 768.125, Florida . . .

M. FRENCH, v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH d b a, 513 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . These allegations, standing alone, would not support a cause of action under sections 562.11 and 768.125 . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1985) provides: Liability for injury or damage resulting from intoxication . . .

BANKSTON, v. J. BRENNAN, Jr., 507 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 1987)

. . . Section 768.125 provides in pertinent part: [A] person who willfully and unlawfully sells or furnishes . . . The plain meaning of section 768.125 requires us to hold that a social host who willfully and unlawfully . . . Defendants assert that section 768.125 is ambiguous in light of the construction placed on a similar . . . Section 768.125 makes no such reference. . . . Clearly, one of the purposes behind the enactment of section 768.125 was to limit such liability. . . . wherein the district court certified the following question of great public importance: DOES SECTION 768.125 . . . Our disposition of the certified question turns solely on the meaning to be given to section 768.125. . . . We also held that section 768.125 represented a limitation on a vendor’s liability, reasoning: When the . . . The petitioners advance two basic arguments in support of their contention that 768.125 does create a . . . The legislature has evidenced, through chapter 562 and section 768.125 for example, a desire to make . . . I agree with the majority’s analysis that section 768.125, Florida Statutes, was not intended to create . . .

J. H. PRITCHARD, v. JAX LIQUORS, INC., 499 So. 2d 926 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . The motion also asserted that § 768.125, Fla.Stat., the statute upon which the action was based, was . . . Section 768.125 provides a civil remedy against providers of alcoholic beverages to a person who is “ . . . Pritchard contends that it is not necessary that § 562.50 and § 768.125 be read and construed in pari . . . materia and that the court erred in requiring an action filed pursuant to § 768.125 to allege that a . . . Section 768.125, on the other hand, was enacted in 1980 in the midst of a period of growing awareness . . .

KIRKLAND, v. JOHNSON, A. O Sr. Jr., 499 So. 2d 899 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Appellant contends that the court erred in its construction of section 768.125, Florida Statutes. . . . In Bankston the Fourth District held that section 768.125, Florida Statutes, does not create a cause . . .

FLANIGAN S ENTERPRISES, INC. v. CANTLEY,, 483 So. 2d 895 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . See Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1983); Lonestar Florida, Inc. v. . . .

BANKSTON, a v. J. BRENNAN, Jr., 480 So. 2d 246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . The appellant sued the appellee for his injuries, specifically basing his cause of action on section 768.125 . . . The specific question presented to this court is: Does Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1983) create . . . In 1980, the legislature enacted Section 768.125, Florida Statutes, which provides: A person who sells . . . Specifically, appellant contends that by enacting section 768.125, the legislature created a cause of . . . First, the “right created” by section 768.125, according to Barnes, pertains to the right of recovery . . .

PAPAIK v. TELLMAN,, 16 Fla. Supp. 2d 134 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1985)

. . . alleged in one count of the Complaint that Defendant, PENNING, was in violation of Florida Statute 768.125 . . . and 562.11, the pertinent portions of which read as follows: 768.125. . . . Essentially, Florida Statute 768.125 was passed by our Legislature providing the requisites of a cause . . . Defendant, PENNING, been injured by a minor, such as PAP AIK or GONZALEZ, at the keg party, Florida Statute 768.125 . . . must, therefore, find, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case that Florida Statute 768.125 . . .

L. BARNES, v. B. K. CREDIT SERVICE, INC. a J. d b a, 461 So. 2d 217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . In making its ruling, the court expressly relied on the provisions of section 768.125, Florida Statutes . . . Plaintiff argued in return that section 768.125 is unconstitutional insofar as it purports to place a . . . We disagree with defendants, for section 768.125 clearly draws a distinction between minor and adult . . . Finally, plaintiff vaguely asserts that section 768.125 denies her access to courts. . . . We therefore hold that section 768.125 does not deny access to courts. . . .

L. ROBERTS, v. ROMAN, 457 So. 2d 578 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1980), imposing liability on one who knowingly sells intoxicating . . .

PUGLIA, v. DRINKS ON THE BEACH, INC. a d b a On, 457 So. 2d 519 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . In count II of his second amended complaint, the appellant alleged that appellee violated section 768.125 . . .

J. FORLAW, M. D. v. FITZER,, 456 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1984)

. . . cause of action existed until passage of chapter 80-37, section 1, Laws of Florida (codified at section 768.125 . . .

BOOTH, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY,, 452 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . (Supp.1978) prior to the effective date of § 768.125, Fla.Stat. (1981) may be liable in negligence to . . .

ARMSTRONG E. Sr. v. MUNFORD, INC., 451 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1984)

. . . violation of section 562.11(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), notwithstanding the enactment of section 768.125 . . . The district court held that section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981), in effect at the time of the accident . . . Mar. 8, 1984), the present accident occurred after the effective date of section 768.125. . . . The district court correctly held that section 768.125 requires that the selling or furnishing of the . . . Section 768.125 controls in those cases arising after its effective date. . . .

BARBER, v. JENSEN,, 450 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 1984)

. . . following question to be of great public importance: Prior to May 24, 1980, the effective date of section 768.125 . . . District on the authority of our decision in Migliore and hold that prior to the effective date of section 768.125 . . .

MIGLIORE, v. CROWN LIQUORS OF BROWARD, INC., 448 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1984)

. . . The issue before us is whether, prior to the effective date of section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981 . . . This finding, the Fourth District continued, is buttressed by the legislature’s enactment of section 768.125 . . . Moreover, contrary to the Fourth District’s holding in the present case that section 768.125 creates . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981), provides: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages . . . Section 768.125, enacted as ch. 80-37, Laws of Florida, became effective on May 24, 1980. . . .

ARMSTRONG E. Sr. v. MUNFORD, INC., 439 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . of the second degree punishable as provided in S. 775.082 or S. 775.083, and provisions of section 768.125 . . . appellants’ complaint alleged a cause of action under only section 562.11(l)(a) and not under section 768.125 . . . District Court of Appeal certified the question of whether, prior to the effective date of section 768.125 . . . By enacting section 768.125, the legislature established the requisites of a cause of action by an injured . . . violation of section 562.11(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), notwithstanding the enactment of section 768.125 . . .

C. BURNS, III, v. THREE OF A KIND, INC. a, 439 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981) was in effect at the time the injury occurred and that statute . . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981) provides: A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages . . .

WILLIS, L. L. v. L. STRICKLAND,, 436 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . This case involves an interpretation of section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides in part . . .

FITZER, v. J. FORLAW, M. D., 435 So. 2d 839 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . exception in the event the alcohol is knowingly served “to a person habitually addicted .... ” Section 768.125 . . .

BARBER, v. JENSEN,, 428 So. 2d 770 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . following question to be of great public importance: Prior to May 24, 1980, the effective date of section 768.125 . . .

J. McCARTHY, J. a v. DANNY S WEST, INC. a a, 421 So. 2d 756 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Appellee urges that the case is controlled by Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (1981). . . .

MIGLIORE, v. CROWN LIQUORS OF BROWARD, INC., 425 So. 2d 20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . persons against dispensers of intoxicants for injuries by intoxicated minors when it passed Section 768.125 . . . The statute provides: 768.125 Liability for injury or damage resulting from intoxication. — A person . . . In conclusion, we note that the passage of Section 768.125 would have been totally unnecessary to provide . . . Certainly, no injured third person would proceed under Section 768.125 and assume its more onerous burden . . .

LONESTAR FLORIDA, INC. v. M. COOPER, d b a s, 408 So. 2d 758 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 768.125, Florida Statutes (Supp.1980), provides as follows: 768.125 Liability for injury or damage . . . We conclude, however, that Section 768.125, as stated above, is declarative of the existing law on the . . .

v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., 400 So. 2d 20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . severe legislation is being enacted to cut down on the evil of drunk driving, it is amazing that Section 768.125 . . .