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.
___________________
 Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.
|
