Google seems to be accurate for the most part.
Florida’s dram shop statute provides that:
A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person of lawful drinking age shall not thereby become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such person, except that a person who willfully and unlawfully sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person who is not of lawful drinking age or who knowingly serves a person habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such minor or person. Fla. Stat. § 768.125.
Therefore, the Florida statute bars claims for over serving alcohol except in two limited circumstances.
Varner v. Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., No. 0:15-CIV-60867-WPD, 2016 WL 7508258, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2016) (interestingly, for some, lawsuits against maritime vessels ported out of Florida do not apply this statute because federal maritime law takes precedence).
Ellis v. N.G.N. of Tampa, Inc., 586 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1991) (“Ellis II ”) seems to be the seminal decision on what is meant by "habitually addicted" or a “habitual drunkard”:
We find the cause of action [in section 768.125] in this circumstance only requires evidence that the vendor had knowledge that the individual the vendor served was a habitual drunkard. Serving an individual multiple drinks on one occasion would be insufficient, in and of itself, to establish that the vendor knowingly served a habitual drunkard alcoholic beverages. On the other hand, serving an individual a substantial number of drinks on multiple occasions would be circumstantial evidence to be considered by the jury in determining whether the vendor knew that the person was a habitual drunkard. We agree with the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Sabo v. Shamrock Communications, Inc., 566 So.2d 267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), approved sub nom. Peoples Restaurant v. Sabo, [591 So.2d 907 (Fla. 1991) ], that this element can properly be established by circumstantial evidence.
Id. at 1048-49;
Hayes Robertson Grp., Inc. v. Cherry, 260 So. 3d 1126, 1132 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018). I suspect it would be very difficult to hold most places like Disney World (outside of their golf courses) liable under the habitual drunkard exception. It happens, however, usually where the drunk is a repeat patrol of the bar. Take
Gonzalez v. Stoneybrook W. Golf Club, LLC, Inc., 225 So. 3d 891, 892 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017), where the court said a lawsuit against a golf course for causing a third-party's death could proceed because it served alcohol to one of its members (Hartman) who
had played golf at the club approximately seventy to eighty times over a three-year period prior to the crash. Hartman was intoxicated virtually each time they played together at Stoneybrook. Hartman normally started the day by drinking two strongly poured whiskey and Cokes in sixteen-ounce Styrofoam cups poured by bartenders who were familiar with Hartman. At the turn at the midpoint of the golf round, Hartman normally went to the Stoneybrook clubhouse and purchased another strongly poured sixteen-ounce whiskey and Coke and would often buy additional drinks from the “cart girl, a Stoneybrook employee.” On the day of the crash, Hartman had four such drinks, including approximately eight ounces of straight alcohol poured by the “cart girl” on the course....
While I thought I recalled a lawsuit alleging Disney was responsible for an intoxicated patron injuring another guest, I didn't find it. The wording of the dram shop law is so broad that I I'd expect Disney to argue it is not liable even if a drunk guest were to beat up another guest. I should be clear, however, that the dram shop law only prohibits lawsuits against sellers alleging the "intoxication" caused harm. Disney could still be sued for its own negligence in allegedly permitting one guest to beat up another guest (I mean, if Disney gets sued because a guest ran over another guests foot with an ECV or stroller) then it can be sued for negligence in not stopping attacks. So, a smart lawyer might not even mention that the aggressive guest was drunk in the lawsuit.
Disney seems much more likely to be sued by the intoxicated person. David Koenig's book, The People V.
Disneyland: How Lawsuits & Lawyers Transformed the Magic
Learn more:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1937878031/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_4yZTDb2JGPZTB recounts several older lawsuits by drunk patrons in Disneyland. (He notes Disneyland was sued three days after it opened). My "favorite" (in the tragic sense) are the three teenagers who decided to ride Space Mountain so drunk that one climbed out of the ride vehicle and fell. He sued for the resulting paralysis but Disney won when a CM showed it was possible to climb out of the vehicle in a short time. His buddies also lost their claims alleging they were emotionally scared from the incident.
Then there was the case involving a drunk (NY) lawyer at WDW. A guest and one of Disney's security personnel "witnessed Plaintiff hit at least two other vehicles with his car while in the parking area, and leave his car running." They reported it to OCSD officer who "determined that he was not sober enough to care for his [nine-year old] daughter." The OCSD officer "arrested Plaintiff for disorderly intoxication pursuant to Florida Statute § 856.011, and at the request of an authorized Disney representative gave Plaintiff a trespass warning." The lawyer sued Disney, Orange County and the individual officers for several claims, but they essentially alleged false arrest. The court dismissed Disney at the outset. The officer was dismissed on summary judgment.
Basile v. Massaro, No. 6:10-CV-993-ORL-36, 2012 WL 3940282, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2012).
