February 18, 2005
MY BROTHER’S KEEPER
Top court to decide if hosts liable for drunken guest's deadly crash (Cristin Schmitz, Ottawa Citizen, February, 18th, 2005)
A Kemptville woman who was paralysed by a drunk driver will get her chance to convince the Supreme Court that Canadians who allow people in their homes to consume too much alcohol should be held financially responsible for the devastation wreaked by their impaired guests.The top court agreed yesterday to hear a groundbreaking appeal by Zoe Childs, 23, who became paraplegic at 18 when the car she was riding in was slammed head-on by a drunk driver on Jan. 1, 1999. Her spine was severed in the crash.
Desmond Desormeaux, an alcoholic with two previous impaired driving convictions, veered into the wrong lane on Albion Road, killing Ms. Childs' boyfriend, Derek Dupre, and seriously injuring three passengers.
Mr. Desormeaux's blood alcohol was nearly three times the legal limit.
He was found guilty of several charges, including impaired driving causing death, and sentenced to 10 years in prison. In 2002, he was remanded to a halfway house in Ottawa.Mr. Desormeaux had just left a New Year's Eve "bring your own booze" potluck party at the home of his friends, Dwight Courrier and Julie Zimmerman. Mr. Desormeaux was uninsured and had no assets.
But Ms. Childs, who claims $3.2 million in damages, sued the two hosts of the party, who have $1 million in tenant's insurance.
She argued the pair ought to be held at least partly responsible for the catastrophic injuries she suffered because they should have prevented the known heavy drinker from getting behind the wheel.
The Ontario lower courts dismissed her case. "Social hosts" have never been held liable in Canada for damages caused by their inebriated guests. But Ms. Childs' appeal might be heard as soon as next fall when the Supreme Court could choose to open that door. No decisions have held social hosts liable in England, Australia or New Zealand, but a few American states do impose such liability.
If Ms. Childs wins, the ruling would affect the social behaviour of Canadians across the country, predicted her lawyer, Barry Laushway.
"People would have to take some ownership if they have a drunk who comes to their property and gets seriously intoxicated while there," he said. "A host would have to take some reasonable precaution, or some reasonable steps, to prevent that person from leaving and killing people, or putting them in a wheelchair."
Nanny state or responsible citizenship?
We're 20 years down the line since bars and restaurants were first held liable for their customers' drinking, so I have an idea that personal responsability isn't going to win out in this case. But since a lot of folks in the upper echilons of society also do entertaining where alcohol is served, a ruling here that you have to either watch all your guests like hawks or put a cut-off time/amount on alcohol consumption may be met with a far stronger backlash than the decisions that made corporations with generally deeper pockets foot the bill for later accidents.
Posted by: John at February 18, 2005 9:06 AMI think this would be a first in that the host didn't furnish the alcohol.
Say goodbye to the family friendly and affordable restaurants with the byob policy that many of us frequent and enjoy.
Chalk up another victory for a minority who got legislation from the bench that they couldn't get in the legislature.
Posted by: Mike at February 18, 2005 9:21 AMI would say this has little to do with attitudes toward alcohol, more to do with attitudes toward insurance companies. Robber state.
Posted by: pj at February 18, 2005 9:50 AMI agree with pj. It sounds like the couple who had the party would not be sued if the driver had had insurance or/and they did not carry tenant's insurance.
Posted by: Buttercup at February 18, 2005 10:06 AMThis issue was litigated 20+ years ago in Ohio. Social hosts were held not liable.
Posted by: Bob at February 18, 2005 10:24 AMThey may not be liable, but they sure are stupid. I was responsible enough not to let friends drive home drunk even as a teenager...when we were drinking illegally.
Posted by: Brandon at February 18, 2005 10:40 AMNanny state and pj is correct. I don't understand why anyone but the individual who drives drunk is responsible for damage done. On the other hand, a person that hosts a private party for friends would seemingly have more responsibility than a bar. At a private party the host is likely to know the guests, be more aware of their drinking and driving habits and notice when a person attempts to leave the party and whether or not that person is visibly intoxicated. At a bar or nightclub employees likely do not know the person very well, he may be served by a variety of servers or bartenders, employees don't know if the person was drinking before he came to the business and they don't even know if he has a car or intends to drive. Friends don't let friends drive drunk, but bars have lots of insurance, so guess who ends up in court.
Posted by: Pat H at February 18, 2005 10:54 AMBob,
In NJ, they were held liable.
It is a nanny state intrusion, just another way for the state to contribute to the sum total of human misery. What else can government be for?
If people choose to get drunk and drive home, that is their problem not mine. I live my life by public transport, not driving anywhere if there is a significant possibility that I will drink to excess. I do not believe in trial by machine and I certainly do not trust the competence of these Chief Wiggums we call local law enforcement in NJ. Drunk driving laws exist to raise money for these grubby little towns we have here, not to keep anyone actually safe.
Posted by: Bart at February 18, 2005 11:40 AMBart:
Yes, there is actually a split in the US. Some states permit social host liability, some don't. NJ was a leader in the pro-liability direction.
The BYOB issue removes this case from the New Jersey-type social-host liability test, there being a great distinction between serving your social guest alchohol and not monitoring his consumption of his own alchohol. .
Posted by: Lou Gots at February 18, 2005 3:32 PMLou,
That's a weird distinction. I can't imagine anything more lugubrious than a party where each guest sits around drinking his 'own booze,' rather than having a communal bar. If I have a party and give you a spiced rum and coke, then you return to drinking the Irish whiskey you brought and become snookered, I then become liable but if I refused to share my wealth with you then I'm not?
What about if I serve Veal Marsala? And then you proceed to get drunk on your own booze. Am I on the hook then? I know Talmudists that these distinctions would make their heads spin.
Why can't we just say 'Ordinary people are ordinary people. They are not in a position to know if someone is snookered and they do not have the financial wherewithal to provide for people who get snookered while at a party at their house. If I have a party for 20 people at my house, and they get soused, I'd have to stack them up like bats in a batrack. So we should not treat them as if they are.'
Posted by: Bart at February 18, 2005 5:33 PMthis strikes me as a way to keep anyone from drinking. oh hell, i just knocked my glass of wine over, may i have another ? what, why not, well curse your malformed genitalia then...
Posted by: cjm at February 18, 2005 11:18 PMA practical question,
The party hosts didn't provide this guy the alcohol, so the couldn't cut him off like a bartender. Even if they were providing alcohol (say a like of bottles of wine or whiskey on a buffet) how are they supposed to monitor how much this guy served himself? Final practical questoin, how exactly were they supposed to keep him from driving? Tackle him and take his keys, lock him in the closet? They would just open themselves up to being sued by the drinker.
Posted by: Thom at February 19, 2005 2:58 PM