Good news for party hosts - development in Canadian law

[StoneMtn]

Private party hosts not liable: SCOC

Canadian Press

Published: Friday, May 05, 2006

OTTAWA -- Hosts of private house parties are not responsible for the actions of their drunken guests once they leave the premises, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

The ruling closes the door for a large liability award for Zoe Childs, an Ottawa-area paraplegic whose life-altering injuries were caused by a drunk driver early on the morning of Jan. 1 1999.

In a unanimous decision, the high court upheld lower court rulings which denied that the host of a New Years party bore responsibility for Childs' injuries.

"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," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

Childs, 18 at the time, suffered a severed spine and her boyfriend Derek Dupre was killed when their vehicle was hit by another.

Childs sued for $6 million in damages from the drunk driver -- a self-confessed alcoholic with two previous impaired-driving convictions -- and from the hosts of the New Year's Eve party he had just left.

While the suit against the driver, Desmond Desormeaux, was successful, two lower courts rejected the liability claim against party hosts Dwight Courrier and Julie Zimmerman.

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.

Evidence in the lower courts showed Desormeaux, 39 at the time, likely downed 10 to 12 beers in two hours at the New Year's party. His blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit when it was measured almost three hours after the accident.

His hosts, longtime friends who knew about his alcohol problems, had walked him to his car and asked if he was able to drive.

Zimmerman and Courrier said they didn't know how much Desormeaux was drinking because they didn't serve him. It was a BYOB -- bring your own bottle -- party.

And testimony at trial gave conflicting opinions on whether he appeared drunk when he left.

Desormeaux admitted he knew he was over the legal limit but "I figured it was only a 15-minute ride and it was all back roads."

Criminal convictions from the accident resulted in a 10-year sentence for Desormeaux.

[Velvet]

I'm glad they handed down a sensible ruling.

[afro poppa]

wow this seems big

Does this mean it changes ALL the social responsibility laws with private parties (like is it reasonably forseeable that...) or just when a 3rd party is injured (like this case where the drunk driver from the party injured a person not at the party)

[StoneMtn]

I haven't actually read the judgment yet, but I can give you an educated guess as an answer, which I am quite certain is correct...

If you are asking whether a host at a party is now free and clear of any tort liability arising at that party on the basis of this judgment, I'd say no. For instance, if someone slips and falls at your party, and there was a hazard that the host was aware of (or should have been aware of) that caused the partier to slip and fall, the party host may still be liable for damages. I suspect it would be less clear, though, if one partier got drunk and then beat up another partier. I think that would be a situation in which the new judgment would be relied upon, and someone would argue that the host isn't responsible for the actions of the violent guy. (I also suspect, though, that a distinction would be drawn between a host who served alcohol, and a BYOB party. It would also be taken into consideration whether the host new the violent guy was inclined to get violent after drinking, or had a drinking problem, etc...)

Anyway, my understanding is that this judgment addresses the one, specific issue of drunk drivers leaving private parties.

(Again, though, I haven't yet read the judgment, so I may be eating my words later on when I do, but I don't have time to read it right now.)

[afro poppa]

I haven't actually read the judgment yet, but I can give you an educated guess as an answer, which I am quite certain is correct...

If you are asking whether a host at a party is now free and clear of any tort liability arising at that party on the basis of this judgment, I'd say no. For instance, if someone slips and falls at your party, and there was a hazard that the host was aware of (or should have been aware of) that caused the partier to slip and fall, the party host may still be liable for damages. I suspect it would be less clear, though, if one partier got drunk and then beat up another partier. I think that would be a situation in which the new judgment would be relied upon, and someone would argue that the host isn't responsible for the actions of the violent guy. (I also suspect, though, that a distinction would be drawn between a host who served alcohol, and a BYOB party. It would also be taken into consideration whether the host new the violent guy was inclined to get violent after drinking, or had a drinking problem, etc...)

Anyway, my understanding is that this judgment addresses the one, specific issue of drunk drivers leaving private parties.

(Again, though, I haven't yet read the judgment, so I may be eating my words later on when I do, but I don't have time to read it right now.)

Yea that seems to make sense. It was odd because I had just taken a general Law class in University and one of our big subjects was tort law and responsibilty of home owners and all that jazz, and then now here comes this seemingly landmark case that changes a few things.

[bouche]

So now we don't have to stop people from drinking a couple of hours before our party ends?

Great!

Ollie was just telling me that one of the 'responsible party tips' was to stop serving alcohol to your guests an hour or 2 before your party is supposed to end.

IN real life, the party ends when all the booze is gone, or no one is awake to drink anymore

[StoneMtn]

... or after you pry the bottle out of Velvet's hands ...

[bradm]

IN real life, the party ends when all the booze is gone, or no one is awake to drink anymore

Either that, or it briefly pauses until re-stocking opportunities present themselves the next morning...

Aloha,

Brad

[Esau.]

That was such a great morning (it was 10:30am)... :wipes tears from eyes:

Not pictured are the other two cases.

[edit to add]

cases of beer I mean.

Edited May 5, 2006 by Guest

[bradm]

How was the rest of the day? I think the problem I'd have is that, after a heavy night of partying (and getting very little sleep, and probably not great sleep at that), commencing to party before lunch would cause me to crash pretty hard just after lunch, and I'm not sure I'd be that up for getting down that evening.

Aloha,

Brad

[payce-ley]

yeah, Day 4's a bitch!

aloha,

paisley

[Esau.]

Well, there hadn't been any sleep when that picture was taken, and there was 6 or 7 people left still (I think) and the party went on until that evening, if I remember correctly.*[color:red]Correction* that was saturday morning, the party went until sunday evening....or was it...

Edited May 5, 2006 by Guest