News Articles

The End of the Dinner Party?

The Courts in our fair country continue to expand the liabilities associated with individuals who consume too much alcohol and determine they are fit to drive.  What does this mean for us – John Q. Public?  We already know about bar owners being potentially liable for knowingly or recklessly letting patrons leave their establishments in inebriated states.  But what about the company office party? Having the “boys” over for a few cold ones while watching the Stanley Cup Playoffs?  Having the neighbours over for supper?  Are the Courts indicating to us that these types of social interactions are no longer acceptable?

The answer is no – not yet.  But what recent court decisions appear to be saying to us as homeowners, employers or hosts of a function where alcohol is served is that we must exercise caution in permitting individuals invited to our function that have become inebriated to leave the function and hop in their vehicles.  The Courts are not suggesting that we all have breathalyzers located at our doors, however, they seem to be suggesting that hosts must take pro-active measures to prevent guest from driving impaired.

In order to be found liable, a host must found to be standing in a special relationship with the individual who has caused the injury to the innocent third party.  There has to be a close relationship between the drunk driver and the host.  Thus, employers who serve alcohol at a function to their employees, the buddies who come over for a few while watching the game, or even friend invited over for a nice dinner are all potentially people who stand in a special relationship with the host.

Typically, hosts are not pursued unless the drunk driver is uninsured or underinsured, however, with the increasing settlement awards occurring as a result of the carnage caused by drunk drivers, we should all exercise a little more caution when hosting a party.  This would be particularly so if we have knowledge of a person’s predisposition to drinking heavily and then driving.  Liability may be extended to a person who is possessed of this information and fails to take steps to prevent the person from driving, even if he isn’t the host of the party.

Courts appear to be requiring us not only to determine if a person is impaired but also to take positive steps to prevent that person from operating a motor vehicle.  It is not enough to ask if the person is impaired and if told, “no, I’m fine…really” to be absolved of liability.  It seems that if the host could reasonably determine that the individual is impaired, and then the host must take pro-active steps to prevent them from driving.  Such things as taking their keys, placing the person in a taxi, ensuring a non-inebriated person drives or ultimately calling the police are not out of the question.  Many peoples initial reaction to this is either it’s not my responsibility or if I act like this no one will come over.  I guess the simple answer to this response is that the law is placing this obligation upon you should you decide to host a party and if your friends won’t come over because you care for them – perhaps they are not the type of friends you want anyway.

The law does not require you to act with the wisdom of Solomon, however, it does require you to act reasonably in the circumstances.  The Courts aren’t saying that these social gatherings or functions are bad and should be avoided.  The Courts are simply saying act reasonably, care for your friends and neighbours and by all means let’s try to keep the drunks off the road.  If you don’t – the financial penalties may be huge.  It’s not a bad message – now I have to go by some fruit punch and toss out the beer for when the guys from the office come over to watch the game tonight!!!

Jim Glass
May 29, 2002