The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in Childs v. Desormeaux that hosts who serve alcoholic beverages at private parties are not liable (absent extenuating circumstances) for damages caused by intoxicated guests who cause motor vehicle accidents following the party. 
The case arose from a 1999 Ontario motor vehicle accident which followed a New Year's Eve "BYOB" party. An impaired guest was involved in an tragic accident, in which one man was killed and one woman was left paraplegic.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) had intervened to make submissions to the Court.
Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin, finding that "a host is entitled to respect the autonomy of a guest," summarized the Court's unanimous decision:
A person hosts a party. Guests drink alcohol. An inebriated guest drives away and causes an accident in which another person is injured. Is the host liable to the person injured? 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...The Court distinguished the obligations of a private host from those of a commercial bar or tavern. A commercial establishment that serves alcohol has a duty to monitor its patrons and limit unreasonable consumption of alcohol. Tavern owners may be found liable in these circumstances.
The central legal issue raised by this appeal is whether social hosts who invite guests to an event where alcohol is served owe a legal duty of care to third parties who may be injured by intoxicated guests. It is clear that commercial hosts, like bars or clubs, may be under such a duty. This is the first time, however, that this Court has considered the duty owed by social hosts to plaintiffs like Ms Childs....
A person who accepts an invitation to attend a private party does not park his autonomy at the door. The guest remains responsible for his or her conduct. Short of active implication in the creation or enhancement of the risk, a host is entitled to respect the autonomy of a guest. The consumption of alcohol, and the assumption of the risks of impaired judgment, is in almost all cases a personal choice and an inherently personal activity. Absent the special considerations that may apply in the commercial context, when such a choice is made by an adult, there is no reason why others should be made to bear its costs.
What sorts of circumstances might fit into the "active implication" exception the Court outlined?
For example, would a host who said to a guest, "C'mon Roger, don't be a wimp.. Have another martini for the road.." be "actively implicated in the creation or enhancement of the risk?"
The decision on that issue, according to the Court, will apparently have to wait for another day.
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit the WISE LAW OFFICE Website - http://www.wiselaw.net/
No comments:
Post a Comment