TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Private party hosts not liable: SCOC
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Private party hosts not liable: SCOC

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/National/home

Supreme Court: Private party hosts not liable

RICHARD BLACKWELL

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that two hosts of a New Year's Eve party were not responsible for the havoc caused by a guest who drunkenly drove away from their house and caused crippling injuries to an 18-year-old woman.

In a unanimous decision that will cause a sigh of relief from many party hosts, the court upheld an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that said the two were not liable for the pain and suffering of Zoe Childs, when the car she was driving in was rammed by Desmond Desormeaux on Jan. 1, 1999.

�I conclude that as a general rule, a social host does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by a guest who has consumed alcohol,� Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

Full text of the ruling

Mr. Desormeaux had been drinking at a party held by Julie Zimmerman and Dwight Courrier. In her suit. Ms. Childs had sued the hosts, arguing that they should have stopped Mr. Desormeaux from getting in his car in a drunken state.

The decision was a disappointment to organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which hoped the Supreme Court would impose liability on �social hosts� when their guests get drunk and misbehave.

The insurance industry had argued that an imposition of social-host liability would boost claims on homeowners' and tenants' insurance policies.

The party at the centre of this case was at the home of Ms. Zimmerman and Mr. Courrier, a long-time friend of Mr. Desormeaux.

It was a �bring your own bottle� party and Mr. Desormeaux brought lots. Ms. Zimmerman and Mr. Courrier offered their guests only a small glass of champagne at midnight.

The key legal issue at stake was whether so-called social hosts � private citizens � are bound by the same rules as commercial establishments.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that bars, restaurants and other commercial purveyors of alcohol have a �duty of care� not only to the people doing the drinking, but also to third parties such as the drivers they may encounter later on the highway.

Bar owners can be held liable if they keep serving an obviously drunk customer or allow one to drive away.

Chief Justice McLachlin said in her ruling that it is reasonable to expect that commercial establishments will act to protect the public interest, but �the same cannot be said of the social host, who neither undertakes nor is expected to monitor the conduct of guests on behalf of the public.�

The lower courts had given complex and contradictory rulings in this case.

In 2002, Mr. Justice James Chadwick of Ontario Superior Court found that Ms. Zimmerman and Mr. Courrier had a �duty not to turn Desmond Desormeaux loose on the highway, where he could cause injury or death to others.�

But the judge refused to rule in favour of Ms. Childs, saying that a finding of liability would place too large a burden on social hosts, and home-insurance premiums would rise. The judge said it is up to governments to legislate on the issue and to set the limits on compensation, if they choose to do so.

Ms. Childs then appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which also dismissed her claim for different reasons. A panel of three judges said there was no negligence by the host couple since it was a BYOB party, they did not serve liquor to Mr. Desormeaux and they did not know how drunk he was when he left.

That appeals court, however, left the door open to finding liability in other cases �when it is shown that a social host knew that an intoxicated guest was going to drive a car and did nothing to protect innocent third parties.�

In their filing with the Supreme Court, Ms. Childs's lawyers argued that the general rules of negligence should apply in these kinds of cases. Hosts should be partly responsible when they can foresee possible harm, and have some control or influence over the drunk person.

Wow, thats awesome. I thought they court would find that a duty was owed. Thats really good news.

agreed...this is a great decision.

it's about time that we hold people responsible for their own actions!

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT agreed...this is a great decision. it's about time that we hold people responsible for their own actions!

amen to that!

Common sense actually prevails here...

quote:

Originally posted by TO guy Wow, thats awesome. I thought they court would find that a duty was owed. Thats really good news.

I haven't read the decision but my guess is that the difference probably lies in who supplies the booze. Taverns are in the business of supplying alcohol therefore they have a greater duty of care then do individuals who mearly allow the consumption of alcohol at their residence.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I haven't read the decision but my guess is that the difference probably lies in who supplies the booze. Taverns are in the business of supplying alcohol therefore they have a greater duty of care then do individuals who mearly allow the consumption of alcohol at their residence.

You should add that if the hosts were supplying the alcohol then there will be a duty of care owed. By letting someone leave your party when you ought to have known they were not in a condition to drive their vehicle then you have breached that duty of care and would be considered negligent.

Each case has to be looked at seperately as I have seen many cases go the other way in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced You should add that if the hosts were supplying the alcohol then there will be a duty of care owed. By letting someone leave your party when you ought to have known they were not in a condition to drive their vehicle then you have breached that duty of care and would be considered negligent. Each case has to be looked at seperately as I have seen many cases go the other way in the past.

I think you're right. I haven't read the SCC decision, but I know that one of the lower courts (I think it was Court of Appeal (Ontario)) said that the homeowners didn't really know how much this person drank (I think it was like 10 beers in one and half hours!), which factored to make the homeowners only 15% liable. I am glad the SCC found them 0% liable.

This is good news. The host should NOT be responsible. The person drinking should know their limit and be sensible enough not to drive. If not they will face the consequences.

Now they should extend that further to business establishments. Imagine if the same standard we applied to people selling booze was applied to other businesses? Every convenience store in the country would be out of business because they sold cigarettes for example.

At least the supreme court has realized that its time to hold people responsible for their own actions.

Now if only someone would take all these archaic city bylaws to supreme court....

^^^ I wouldn't go that far...and the cigarette analogy is a very poor one in that there is no imminent danger to the public if someone buys 10 packs instead of 1 vs. drinking 10 beers and driving vs. 1.

businesses have an ulterior motive...profit. It's in their financial interests to have you drink as much as possible and thus the duty of care ought to remain, IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT ^^^ I wouldn't go that far...and the cigarette analogy is a very poor one in that there is no imminent danger to the public if someone buys 10 packs instead of 1 vs. drinking 10 beers and driving vs. 1. businesses have an ulterior motive...profit. It's in their financial interests to have you drink as much as possible and thus the duty of care ought to remain, IMHO.

And it is the convenience store's goal to sell you as many cigarettes as possible. Of course a bar wants to sell sell sell. But the onus should be on the consumer. Nobody forces anyone to buy what they dont want. And nobody forces anyone to drive afterwards. The onus of liability should fall STRICTLY ON THE CONSUMER WHO IS OF LEGAL AGE.

Same thing with bars serving to minors. Why is the minor never charged for fraud? That is something i could never ever figure out. The minor is deliberately defrauding the company by misrepresentation yet the company is the one to solely to blame?

Our liquor laws need a SERIOUS overhaul.


PS: the fact that MADD supported this stupid lawsuit is exactly why that organization will never get a RED CENT from me. They started out with good intentions (to stop drunk driving) but unfortunately they ended up becoming nothing more than a group of prohibitionists.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Now they should extend that further to business establishments. Imagine if the same standard we applied to people selling booze was applied to other businesses? Every convenience store in the country would be out of business because they sold cigarettes for example.

I agree with Mark that your analogy doesn't really work. The person that suffered the harm in the drunk driving case is the one that brought the lawsuit. This person is not the person that consumed the alcohol. With cigarettes, the person that is harmed is the person that is doing the smoking. (I know you know all this, for the record, but I am pointing it out to say that I think that the difference is important in a negligence action).

And re: taking the stupid by-laws to the SCC ... what is the process for that? Is there some sort of provincial body (OMB?) that we would have to go to first? Or are municipalites somewhat sovereign (sp?)?

In this specific case, it was a BYOB (bring your own booze) party... therefore, it was just expected to release the hosts of any liability.

However, let's imagine for a second that it WASN'T a BYOB party... and the hosts had the control over how much alcohol was being distributed at the party, and the whole picture changes...

quote:

Originally posted by Crazy Serb In this specific case, it was a BYOB (bring your own booze) party... therefore, it was just expected to release the hosts of any liability. However, let's imagine for a second that it WASN'T a BYOB party... and the hosts had the control over how much alcohol was being distributed at the party, and the whole picture changes...

For sure, that would change it. But I think it would still matter whether or not the hosts did the serving. I mean think of a BYOB party where I show up and didn't bring anything, but got hammered on what someone else brought.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 And it is the convenience store's goal to sell you as many cigarettes as possible. ...

sure, but whether or not they sell someone 1 pack or 10 packs doesn't impact public safety at all.

and someone who's wasted can rather easily be persuaded to "go on, have another" by shady bar tenders..."go on, buy another" pack of cigarettes isn't really of consequence thing

I'm with you on MADD though...it's become rather extremist over the years.

The reality is....if you are hosting a party and you provide the alcohol then it is your responsibility to make sure you don't over serve people. As the hosts and provider of the alcohol you have a duty of care to make sure your guests don't over drink...you also have a duty of care to all those on the road if you let that person drive....including the drunk.

The issue comes wether the hosts did something they shouldn't have or if they failed to do something they should have. If either one of these are the case then they are negligent and would be held liable for the actions or failure to act. In a case like this one...they would not be 100% liable but at least a portion liable.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced The reality is....if you are hosting a party and you provide the alcohol then it is your responsibility to make sure you don't over serve people. As the hosts and provider of the alcohol you have a duty of care to make sure your guests don't over drink...you also have a duty of care to all those on the road if you let that person drive....including the drunk. The issue comes wether the hosts did something they shouldn't have or if they failed to do something they should have. If either one of these are the case then they are negligent and would be held liable for the actions or failure to act. In a case like this one...they would not be 100% liable but at least a portion liable.

No. If they had the duty, and the guy crashed his car, then the obviously didn't meet their standard of care. They don't have a duty, that is why they were not found liable.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced The reality is....if you are hosting a party and you provide the alcohol then it is your responsibility to make sure you don't over serve people

what are you talking about? that is exactly the opposite of how they just ruled.

how are you supposed to control some guy with a flask in your bathroom?

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey what are you talking about? that is exactly the opposite of how they just ruled. how are you supposed to control some guy with a flask in your bathroom?

This case was a BYOB, thus they never served this person, and are liable because of it. He was saying that if the hosts had served the liqour, then they would have been liable, and he's right. And in regards to the flask in the bathroom, I have no comment either way.

quote:

Originally posted by Hantu This case was a BYOB, thus they never served this person, and are not liable because of it. He was saying that if the hosts had served the liqour, then they would have been liable, and he's right. And in regards to the flask in the bathroom, I have no comment either way.

My bad, this is what I meant.

quote:

Originally posted by Hantu My bad, this is what I meant.

You know you can edit posts ... you don't need to quote them and modify them in the quote ....

Anyhow the court ruled that the hosts did not know that the driver was impaired, and such knowledge (one would think) has nothing to do with service of alcohol (well ... at least it doesn't necessarily mean service). So a host could give someone a few drinks, think they were OK to drive, and still not be liable.

quote:

Originally posted by TO guy You know you can edit posts ... you don't need to quote them and modify them in the quote .... Anyhow the court ruled that the hosts did not know that the driver was impaired, and such knowledge (one would think) has nothing to do with service of alcohol (well ... at least it doesn't necessarily mean service). So a host could give someone a few drinks, think they were OK to drive, and still not be liable.

or the hosts could serve a few drinks and not know that the driver also had 17 shots from his/her flask in the bathroom before stumbling out to their car.

quote:

Originally posted by TO guy You know you can edit posts ... you don't need to quote them and modify them in the quote .... Anyhow the court ruled that the hosts did not know that the driver was impaired, and such knowledge (one would think) has nothing to do with service of alcohol (well ... at least it doesn't necessarily mean service). So a host could give someone a few drinks, think they were OK to drive, and still not be liable.

yeah, my goof. eating and posting at the same time don't go together for me, heehee.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey or the hosts could serve a few drinks and not know that the driver also had 17 shots from his/her flask in the bathroom before stumbling out to their car.

exactly, same thing. The court made it clear that hosting a party is not the same as hosting a bar.

quote:

Originally posted by Hantu yeah, my goof. eating and posting at the same time don't go together for me, heehee.

lol no worries

was suing the driver not enough?

I bet the hosts of the party had more money and therefore had to go thru this shit

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.