## Facts

- Teresa Sipes sued individually and as personal representative of Roy E. Stamey’s estate.
- Stamey was under 21 and allegedly appeared to be under 21 based on his “appearance, speech and mannerisms.”
- On July 8, 1995, Stamey allegedly bought alcoholic beverages from Albertson’s, Inc.
- On July 9, 1995, Stamey allegedly bought alcoholic beverages from Star Enterprise and from a hotel operated by Marriott International, Inc.
- The complaint alleged the vendors’ sales violated Florida’s prohibition on selling alcohol to persons under 21.
- After consuming alcohol, Stamey became intoxicated, had an altercation with his stepfather, and was shot and killed by the stepfather.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, reasoning the fatal shooting was not legally foreseeable and thus proximate cause was lacking.
- After an initial affirmance, the appellate court recalled its mandate and reheard the case in light of intervening precedent emphasizing that foreseeability is generally for the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint alleging unlawful sales of alcohol to a minor may be dismissed at the pleading stage on the ground that a later fatal shooting by a third party was not legally foreseeable as a matter of law.
2. Whether proximate cause and foreseeability in this context present fact questions that should be left to the jury rather than resolved on a motion to dismiss.

## Decision

- The appellate court withdrew its prior opinion, reversed the order dismissing the complaint, and remanded.
- The court held that foreseeability and proximate cause could not be decided as a matter of law on the pleadings where reasonable people could differ.
- The complaint’s allegations, taken as true, were sufficient to state a cause of action and proceed to factual development.

## Legal Principles

- In Florida negligence cases, foreseeability and proximate cause are generally questions for the jury.
- A court may resolve foreseeability or proximate cause as a matter of law only in the rare case where no reasonable person could differ.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court must accept well-pleaded allegations as true and should not decide disputed causal inferences that depend on facts not yet developed.
- When a statutory violation is alleged (such as unlawful sales of alcohol to a minor), whether ensuing harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence ordinarily presents a jury question.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the dismissal because the complaint plausibly alleged that unlawful alcohol sales to an underage person led to intoxication and subsequent events culminating in death, and the foreseeability/proximate-cause inquiry required factual development and jury resolution rather than dismissal on the pleadings.


Sipes v. Albertson's Inc., 728 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)