© 2024 All Rights reserved WUSF
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

The Florida Supreme Court sets a hearing for a Tampa woman's case against a Tallahassee bar

The driver of the truck, 20-year-old Devon Dwyer, had been drinking at Potbelly’s, a bar near the Florida State University campus, while Jacquelyn Faircloth had been drinking at another establishment, Cantina 101.
Google Maps
The driver of the truck, 20-year-old Devon Dwyer, had been drinking at Potbelly’s, a bar near the Florida State University campus, while Jacquelyn Faircloth had been drinking at another establishment, Cantina 101.

The guardian for Jacquelyn Faircloth went to the Supreme Court after an appeals court panel rejected a $28.6 million judgment.

The Florida Supreme Court on Friday said it will hear arguments Sept. 7 in a case involving catastrophic injuries suffered by an 18-year-old Tampa woman after two Tallahassee bars served underage drinkers.

The court said last year it would take up the case but did not schedule arguments until Friday.

The guardian for Jacquelyn Faircloth went to the Supreme Court after a panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal rejected a $28.6 million judgment in the case.

Faircloth, a Plant High School graduate, was injured when she was hit by a pickup truck in 2014 while crossing a street about 2 a.m., according to court records.

The driver of the truck, 20-year-old Devon Dwyer, had been drinking at Potbelly’s, a bar near the Florida State University campus, while Faircloth had been drinking at another establishment, Cantina 101.

Faircloth’s guardian filed a lawsuit against owners of both businesses, alleging that they illegally served alcohol to underage people and caused the accident.

A circuit judge issued a default judgment against Cantina 101 for failing to respond and later entered a $28.6 million judgment jointly and severally against the bars, which meant both could be legally responsible for paying all the damages.

But in an appeal, the owners of Potbelly’s argued, in part, that the circuit judge had improperly rejected what is known as a “comparative fault” defense, which could lead to determining a share of fault — and potentially reducing Potbelly’s liability.

The appeals-court panel agreed saying the case involved a question of negligence, which would allow for comparative fault.

You Count on Us, We Count on You: Donate to WUSF to support free, accessible journalism for yourself and the community.