Mary sabo suffered injuries in an automobile acci­dent caused by daniel hoag, an intoxicated driver. hoag had just left peoples restaurant after having consumed a large number of drinks. sabo sued peoples for damages, alleg­ing that the restaurant had violated a state statute that provided that any person who “knowingly serves” an individual who is “habitually addicted” to alcohol may be held li­able for any injuries or damages caused by the intoxication of that indi­vidual. in spite of evidence indicating that for the two years prior to the accident, hoag had gone to peoples twice a week and on each occasion had drunk liquor until he was in­toxicated, the trial court granted peoples’ motion for summary judgment. the court held that sabo had failed to show that peoples had knowledge that hoag was an alco­holic and the bar had therefore not “knowingly” served an alcohol addict. was summary judgment for peoples appropriate in this case?