Author Topic: Supreme Court To Rule On Social Host Liability (Read 639 times)

Twentytwofifty · « **on:** January 18, 2006, 03:02:26 PM »

Supreme Court to rule on social host liability

Updated Wed. Jan. 18 2006 9:21 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments Wednesday on a controversial case that may see hosts legally responsible for the behaviour of their drinking guests.

It's called Social Host Liability, and the ruling will determine whether hosts can be held liable for the actions of their guests after they leave their home.

The court will rule on a case from New Year's Eve 1999, when Desmond Desormeaux left a party after consuming 12 beers, got in a car and within minutes veered into oncoming traffic and crashed into another vehicle.

Zoe Childs, who was 18 at the time, was a passenger in the oncoming vehicle and was rendered a paraplegic. Her boyfriend, Derek Dupre, was killed and two others were also seriously injured.

She is suing the hosts of the party for $2.3 million in damages, arguing they should be held partly responsible for the behaviour of the known heavy drinker, whom they could have prevented from getting behind the wheel.

Her efforts have so far been dismissed by lower Ontario courts.

If the Supreme Court rules that the hosts are liable, it will set an important precedent in Canadian law according to CTV's legal analyst Steven Skurka. It will mark the first time social hosts have been held responsible for their guests' actions.

Under current law, hosts in commercial settings, such as bar owners, are liable for some of their customers' actions, legally referred to as a "duty of care." That law has been in place since 1974, but until now the law has never extended to social settings.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has weighed-in on the case, lobbying for the court to impose a similar duty of care to social hosts.

Skurka says the court may impose requirements on social hosts.

"There are measures you can take in a very responsible way to make sure that people don't leave your party in a drunken condition," Skurka told CTV Newsnet. "Part of it would be just to make sure that when people leave you are standing at the door and making sure they're not stepping into a car where they're going to potentially be in an accident that causes serious injury or death."

Skurka suggested however, that such a ruling may have very drastic implications on the cost of home insurance.

Twentytwofifty · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2006, 03:07:42 PM »

What bullshit. Typical Canada, no one is responsible for themselves we just have to put the blame on someone/something else.

And M.A.D.D. just has to give their two cents about this. Those clowns won't stop until prohibition comes in.

Trauma-san · « **Reply #2 on:** January 18, 2006, 10:35:20 PM »

The real problem here is that any responsible person would be doing this anyways without a law. If somebody's drunk at my house, he's not going anywhere, because I know better and I'm gonna be a man and not let that happen. Not only am I gonna be responsible, I'm gonna make sure everybody around me is responsible if I can help it, and that includes not letting a drunk drive down the street in front of me. It's too easy to just take his car keys away, I can do that pretty easily and get rid of a problem before it even happens. What kind of person just lets people drive drunk from their house? Why do people even have to be taught stuff like that? I thought all men just had it programmed in. Protect defenseless people and animals. Don't let people hurt themselves or others. Try to help people that need help. This is shit most good people feel like doing even if they don't have to or there's no law. When a kid's lost in a department store, you don't help him find his parents because it's a fuckin' law, you do it because it's the right thing to do and you're a man. Civilization is built on men stepping up and doing the right thing. Unfortunately there's less and less men around letting shit like that happen.

Twentytwofifty · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2006, 11:02:12 PM »

Well if you can tell if someone is hammered and can't drive you shouldn't let them drive home but if I'm having a party I wouldn't think I'd have to monitor everyone's drinks all evening to see if they should drive home. Just because they are in my home I shouldn't be responsible for their actions once they leave my property. The person that fucked up should be responsible and that's it.

Sikotic™ · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2006, 12:28:36 AM »

Yeah, I gotta disagree. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. The host should not be responsible in any way for another adult.

7even · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2006, 12:57:04 AM »

Also, you have to think what opportunities float in for haters. Like, if someone dont like you, he just go to your place, just to fuck up later and blame it on you.