Social Host Liability on the Menu at Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada has decided to hear an appeal in a social host liability case. 

Julie Zimmerman and Dwight Courrier hosted a BYOB potluck party.  They didn’t provide or serve alcohol to their guests.  One guest, Desmond Desormeaux, had a history of impaired driving convictions.  He decided to drive home, despite the hosts’ offers of a ride, taxi or to stay overnight. 

Desormeaux hit a car.  Zöe Childs was rendered a paraplegic.  Childs sued the hosts for negligence, losing at trial and on appeal.

At trial, the judge said Childs was asking the court to impose liability for a new duty of care.  Before doing so, the court must be satisfied: (1) that the parties’ relationship is sufficiently close to give rise to a duty of care and (2) that there are no policy considerations that negate or limit the scope of the duty.

The trial judge held that the first requirement was satisfied, in that the social hosts had a duty to monitor Desormeaux's drinking while at the party because he had a history of being a heavy drinker and had arrived at the party with two passengers who were intoxicated. The judge declined to impose a duty of care for policy reasons.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, but also decided that the hosts did not owe a duty of care to Childs, for several reasons.

First, it was a BYOB party. Thus, the hosts did not provide or serve alcohol to Desormeaux. Second, the hosts didn’t know how much alcohol Desormeaux drank. Third, the trial judge did not find that the hosts knew that Desormeaux was impaired when he drove away.

Last year, I wrote in this space:  “How can we possibly impose social host liability?  Most people are not properly trained to recognise the symptoms of drunkenness.  Will we require all people who serve alcohol to guests to have passed a server intervention course?”

“Do we really expect people to say to their friends and guests: ‘I’m cutting you off, because I think you’re getting impaired?’  Not only is it uncomfortable, you’ll start losing friends.  If a person insists on driving home after drinking, are we really expected to physically try to prevent them?  Are we really going to try to forcefully take away the keys of a drunk person who is insisting on driving?  If they do insist on driving, are we expected to call the police?”

It’s time to place your bets on the outcome: will common sense and responsibility prevail or will social hosts become the insurers of the world?

I hope that the Supreme Court does not distinguish between BYOB and other parties.  Why should it matter?  Whether you serve yourself your own booze, or you are served by the hosts’ booze, you should still be able to count your drinks!  (BIG HINT:  if you’ve lost count – don’t drive!)

It will likely be a year before we get a decision.  Of course, I’ll let you know.