Supreme Court of Canada: Who should be responsible

I find this topic interesting and would like your views.  The cbc has a Good Summary of the issue

"Should hosts of house parties be responsible for their guests' actions? The question is before Canada's highest court on Wednesday.

The Supreme Court of Canada is hearing the case of Zoe Childs, who was 18 when a drunken partygoer in Ottawa crashed into the car she was riding in with her boyfriend early into the New Year in 1999.

Desmond Desormeaux, an alcoholic with previous drunk-driving convictions, had more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system after leaving the New Year's Eve house party. "

http://www.cbc.ca/...

Those are the facts of the case, this lady is now in a wheel chair.

My thoughts are below ad yours:

I believe every person is responsibly for there own actions.  The debate I have in my head is not acting an action on the part of the hosts?  A know Drunk driver is drinking at your house, would you not make an attempt to stop that person from a Drinking or B driving.  Should you not give more then 2 drinks to someone that drove to your place?

My feeling is that you should do all of those things but you shouldn't be liable if you don't.  I think it is a value judgment with too many unknowns to pass into law.

For example what if someone arrives Drunk (you don't notice) give him/her a couple of drinks they leave and kill someone.  SOmeone say you giving him alcohol....you say 2 drinks his blood alcohol tells a different story and he's dead.  

What do you guys and gals think?

•  Looking for opinions

  I kinda go back and forth on this one.

  by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:02:23 AM PDT

•  Every one is responsible for their own acti

  The party throwers should bear no culpability as long as Desmong was above the legal drinking age.

  by Larry Horse on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:04:06 AM PDT

  •  Fair enough

    Myself I have thrown a few big parties I would have zero chance of knowing what everyone was doing....

    Basically an unenforcable law that would not be clear is not law at all.

    I believe people have the ethical responsiblitity to try and stop someone but not the legal responsiblitity.

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:07:10 AM PDT

•  How old was the person served?

  My home state draws a distinction based on whether the person served was underage. From a summary by the Institute for Continuing Legal Education:

  Social host liability is the liability of a person or an entity other than a retail licensee for unlawful provision of alcoholic beverages. There is no social host liability for providing alcohol to an adult. Longstreth v Gensel, 423 Mich 675, 377 NW2d 804 (1985). Elements of social host liability claim are (1) the defendant knowingly furnished alcohol to a person younger than age 21 and (2) the minor's consumption of the alcohol caused injury or death. MCL 436.1701. An injured third person or the minor can recover under a social host theory.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:08:51 AM PDT

  •  I believe he was in his 30's

    Age was not an issue.  More so his past history of Drunk Driving.

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:12:03 AM PDT

  •  That's a good rule, IMO

    nm

    by socal on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:29:35 AM PDT

•  It is a tough question

  and I think hosts should bear some responsibility if their actions can be proven to be particularly egregious. For example, if somehow it can be proven that the host knew or should have know that the person was very drunk, and nevertheless did nothing at all to persuade them not to drive, then they could bear some responsibility.

  It's true that ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions. However, when a host creates the kind of conditions that will almost surely lead to drunk driving and has no safeguards in place to cut down on drunkenness (like telling the bartenders not to serve drunkards), then why shouldn't the hosts bear some responsibility for their own actions?

  by Hoyapaul on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:09:35 AM PDT

  •  Yeah...thats the position I had a first

    Inaction can be an action for liability....however proving inaction is hard in court and because of that I believe effective policy would be encourgment rather then laws.....

    Right now in Canada we have commercials  that promote this with someone putting a drunks keys down his pants saying come get them and ending with him calling a taxi.

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:14:00 AM PDT

•  Absolutely 100% the drinker's fault

  There is no room for debate here.  Attempting to blame the party host is from the same school of thought that wants to ban pronography, marijana, and cursing on TV.

  In a free society, consenting adults should be able to do as they wish, including serving drinks and/or getting drunk, except when it hurts a non-consenting individual, in which case they should be held accountable to the law.

  Personal freedom - it's the only way.

  by fizziks on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:09:36 AM PDT

  •  I disagree

    with your conception of the people in favor of host liability as being from "the same school of thought" as the anti-porn, etc. camp.

    It's closer the the concept, much more prevalent in Europe, that in some cases there should be liability for inaction. For example, refusing to save a drowning child even if you have the means to easily do so.

    Anyway, there is absolutely room for debate here.

    by Hoyapaul on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:25:22 AM PDT

    •  Totally True

      I grew up being a lifeguard and teaching first Aid and actually being a First Responder....not acting has never been a consideration for me.

      I feel there is social responsability for sure.....but making someone legally liable may be a slippy slop.

      by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:37:21 AM PDT

    •  Our common law is weird

      In general, there's no duty to save someone else. But if you decide to save someone and botch the effort, you might be sued.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:44:41 AM PDT

  •  Nah

    If the host could have reasonably prevented the drunk driving from happening with some reasonable measures, I want the court to agree hosts have that obligation.

    If we went your way, and said the driver is 100% responsible, I could invite over a friend known to drunk drive, feed him full of booze all night, and watch him drive off knowing he was loaded.  I call that criminal negligence.  

    Nothing says the host is 100% responsible or even 50%, but what about 20%?  The host, after all, creates the conditions for the drunk driving to occur.  The host, also very likely could have easily prevented this tragedy.  Maybe we need societal norms (to the point of polite manners) that say:  People always leave their keys with the host upon arriving at a party.  Parties should no longer leave all the booze out on a table for people to pour their own drinks.  Inviting 50 people over is fun, but if you don't want to pay for a bouncer or two to monitor for drunk drivers, too bad, you better cut your party size down.  Etc.

    Alcohol is restricted to adults for many reasons, and the responsibility inherent in knowing its effects is one of them.  Giving the host a blank cheque to hold enormous wild parties with no consequences doesn't strike me right either.

    My freedom ends where the next guy's freedom starts.  The injured woman in this case certainly has a right to not be hit by drunk drivers.  The drunk driving laws are already pretty severe, and didn't stop him.  Maybe it's time to start placing an obligation on the people serving him the booze to cut him off or get his keys.

    by Scientician on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:18:53 PM PDT

    •  I see what you are saying

      I am all for 'societal norms' if they serve to make us all get along better.  Sure, the guy who provides alcohol to somebody who he knows will very likely drunk drive should maybe be ostracized, made to feel guilty, and generally tut-tutted to your heart's content.

      BUT...

      When you get the law involved - the power of the state involved - in saying what you do that does not necessarily directly hurt someone else can be legally sanctioned, that is a slippery slope straight to prohibition, censorship, and a host of other right-wing badness.

      by fizziks on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:42:46 PM PDT

      •  Can you walk me down that slope?

        Cause I don't see it exactly.

        I guess maybe I do, but the dividing line between this, and say a guy who rapes a woman after watching porn is the level to which the alcohol directly contributes.

        It is a necessary precondition to drunk driving to be drunk.  Raping a woman wouldn't require watching porn.  

        Also the behaviour is predictable.  Meaning, if I let you drive home drunk, the idea you will hurt someone is predictable (not certain of course).  If you watch porn, I have no reason to believe you will commit rape (absent evidence you are a rapist).  

        Also, what reasonable steps could a producer of pornography take to prevent such behaviour, should convincing evidence of causality be found?  At least we know hosts can ask for keys and take steps to control distribution of alcohol at their parties.  We already require pornographers to not portray acts of violence (lack of consent) or use actors appearing to be under 18 (even when they're older).  

        That's the line for me, without writing a paper about it (getting too close as is):  Could the host reasonably and easily have tried to prevent the tragedy?  So, with that in mind, I'm comfortable with some measure of legal sanctions for throwing parties and being negligent to your guests behaviour.  If it crosses that line into, "I'm responsible for anything someone does even if I try and stop them" then I'll vehemently oppose.

        I'm comfortable with Canada's Supreme court not falling all the way down that slope, to make every producer of a product responsible for every indirect consequence of their actions.  The US Supreme Court on the other hand...;)

        by Scientician on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:57:17 PM PDT

•  I don't know if you know this

  but alcoholics oftentimes do not look drunk.  because of their increased tolerance for alcohol they could be comletely wasted yet appear totally together and with it.  So the party hosts may not have even noticed that he was drunk.  Of course appearaning sober and being sober are 2 different things.  You can appear sober, yet still have a much slowed reaction time, blurry vision, etc.  The point is, I doubt that the party hosts counted how much he had to drink.  (I mean do you know exactly how many shots/glasses of wine each of your guests had to drink especially if the party is say 10+ people?  I know I don't).  So it could have been that when the guy left, he looked ok, and they didn't think twice about it.

  by Drgrishka1 on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:15:43 AM PDT

  •  Very true

    For some reason and I don't know why I never appear drunk at all...when I have had quite a few drinks....and I only drink a fair bit once a month or so.

    I remember a friend asking me if I could drive home after doing 7 shots at a bar with him and drinking another 8-10 Beers.......He said I seemed sober....No fricking way was I driving anything.

    I think people should try and stop people but it's just bad law not because of the social goal it wants to acheive but rather because it is unenforcable.

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:19:41 AM PDT

  •  In cases like this

    it would be probably wrong and nearly impossible anyway to impose host liability.

    But what do you think of more egregious cases, when it could be proven that the server knew that the drunk was very drunk and in no condition to drive, and yet did nothing -- like a bar continuing to serve a clearly drunk person in an area without public transportion (to make it more likely that the person would be driving later).

    by Hoyapaul on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:28:53 AM PDT

  •  You're right

    That's why Michigan's dram shop law (for non-law geeks, it confers a right to sue bar owners) applies only if the bar served a person under 21 or who was "visibly intoxicated," which the courts interpret as intoxication "apparent to an ordinary person."

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:37:36 AM PDT

  •  Did his friends know?

    He had previous DUI convictions?  If they did, then they arguably should have suspected he might drive drunk.

    Willful ignorance to the behaviour of a friend or guest you know has had alcohol problems in the past shouldn't be permissible.

    by Scientician on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:20:42 PM PDT

    •  Or perhaps the other way around

      I have a family member who has a DUI conviction (luckily he didn't cause any damage to anyone).  But now he is extra careful about not driving after drinking.  So maybe his friends legitimately assumed that he learned his lesson.

      by Drgrishka1 on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:47:42 PM PDT