There's this interesting article about parties and drinking and driving.
Top court to rule whether hosts are liable for drunk driving of party guest
Sun Apr 30, 01:17 PM EST
OTTAWA (CP) - Here's something to ponder before you throw your next house party, family reunion or birthday bash: If one of your guests drives home drunk and gets into an accident, are you legally liable for the resulting carnage?
The Supreme Court of Canada will go a long way toward answering that question this week, in a ruling that could make people think twice about the way they socialize.
At issue is a lawsuit filed by Zoe Childs, an Ottawa-area woman who was 18 years old when a drunk driver smashed into the car she was riding in early on the morning of Jan. 1, 1999.
Her boyfriend Derek Dupre was killed and Childs was left a paraplegic.
The driver of the other car, Desmond Desormeaux, then 39, was a self-confessed alcoholic with two previous impaired-driving convictions who had just left a New Year's Eve party.
Desormeaux was called a "ticking time bomb" by the judge who sentenced him to 10 years in prison on criminal charges arising from the crash.
Childs launched a separate civil suit claiming $6 million in damages against Desormeaux and the two hosts of the New Year's party, Dwight Courrier and Julie Zimmerman.
Desormeaux, however, has virtually no financial assets, so the full burden of damages could fall on Courrier and Zimmerman if they are held liable.
The Supreme Court, in a landmark 1995 judgment, ruled that bars, restaurants and other commercial purveyors of alcohol have a "duty of care" - not only to the people doing the drinking, but also to third parties such as the drivers they may encounter later on the highway.
That means bar owners can be held liable if, for example, they keep serving an obviously drunk customer and do nothing to prevent him from driving home.
A key issue in the Childs case is whether so-called social hosts - private citizens, as opposed to commercial establishments - are bound by the same rules.
Evidence in the lower courts showed Desormeaux probably consumed 10 to 12 beers in two hours at the New Year's party. His blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit.
There were conflicting opinions, however, on how drunk he appeared to his hosts and fellow guests. Most said he seemed all right to them.
That's not as strange as it may seem, according to toxicology expert Howard Cappell. He testified that alcoholics, because of their higher tolerance for drink, may not slur their words or stumble down the stairs in obvious signs of intoxication.
"There is often a disconnection between the blood alcohol level and the signs the person displays," Cappell told a civil trial before Justice James Chadwick of Ontario Superior Court.
Desormeaux admitted he knew he was over the legal limit but "I figured it was only a 15-minute ride and it was all back roads."
Zimmerman and Courrier said they didn't know how much their friend was drinking because they didn't serve him. It was a BYOB - bring your own bottle - party.
But Barry Laushway, the lawyer for Childs, argued they should have kept him from driving based on past history alone.
Courrier, in particular, "knew Mr. Desormeaux was an alcoholic and that he had a very, very serious drinking problem," said Laushway.
Chadwick concluded that, if he were apportioning blame, he would hold Desormeaux 85 per cent responsible for the crash that injured Childs and the party hosts 15 per cent responsible.
But the judge did not, in fact, hold Zimmerman and Courrier liable.
He ruled it would put an "intolerable burden on all social hosts" to expect them to police the alcohol consumption of each and every guest.
If the Ontario government believes otherwise, said Chadwick, the province should pass legislation making hosts clearly liable rather than leaving it to the courts.
Ontario Court of Appeal, in reviewing the case, also rejected Childs' claim for damages, but for different legal reasons.
The three-judge panel said that, based on the particular circumstances of this case, the hosts couldn't be found liable.
But others, in different circumstances, could well be held to account.
"This judgment should not be interpreted to mean that social hosts are immune from liability," wrote Justice Karen Weiler.
"I do not foreclose social host liability to innocent third parties, particularly when it is shown that a social host knew that an intoxicated guest was going to drive a car and did nothing to protect the innocent third-party users of the road."
The Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments last December, delivers its judgment this Friday.
Even if Childs wins, it's not clear how much she can collect in damages. That would have to be sorted out at further hearings in the lower courts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?
Top court to rule whether hosts are liable for drunk driving of party guest
Sun Apr 30, 01:17 PM EST
OTTAWA (CP) - Here's something to ponder before you throw your next house party, family reunion or birthday bash: If one of your guests drives home drunk and gets into an accident, are you legally liable for the resulting carnage?
The Supreme Court of Canada will go a long way toward answering that question this week, in a ruling that could make people think twice about the way they socialize.
At issue is a lawsuit filed by Zoe Childs, an Ottawa-area woman who was 18 years old when a drunk driver smashed into the car she was riding in early on the morning of Jan. 1, 1999.
Her boyfriend Derek Dupre was killed and Childs was left a paraplegic.
The driver of the other car, Desmond Desormeaux, then 39, was a self-confessed alcoholic with two previous impaired-driving convictions who had just left a New Year's Eve party.
Desormeaux was called a "ticking time bomb" by the judge who sentenced him to 10 years in prison on criminal charges arising from the crash.
Childs launched a separate civil suit claiming $6 million in damages against Desormeaux and the two hosts of the New Year's party, Dwight Courrier and Julie Zimmerman.
Desormeaux, however, has virtually no financial assets, so the full burden of damages could fall on Courrier and Zimmerman if they are held liable.
The Supreme Court, in a landmark 1995 judgment, ruled that bars, restaurants and other commercial purveyors of alcohol have a "duty of care" - not only to the people doing the drinking, but also to third parties such as the drivers they may encounter later on the highway.
That means bar owners can be held liable if, for example, they keep serving an obviously drunk customer and do nothing to prevent him from driving home.
A key issue in the Childs case is whether so-called social hosts - private citizens, as opposed to commercial establishments - are bound by the same rules.
Evidence in the lower courts showed Desormeaux probably consumed 10 to 12 beers in two hours at the New Year's party. His blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit.
There were conflicting opinions, however, on how drunk he appeared to his hosts and fellow guests. Most said he seemed all right to them.
That's not as strange as it may seem, according to toxicology expert Howard Cappell. He testified that alcoholics, because of their higher tolerance for drink, may not slur their words or stumble down the stairs in obvious signs of intoxication.
"There is often a disconnection between the blood alcohol level and the signs the person displays," Cappell told a civil trial before Justice James Chadwick of Ontario Superior Court.
Desormeaux admitted he knew he was over the legal limit but "I figured it was only a 15-minute ride and it was all back roads."
Zimmerman and Courrier said they didn't know how much their friend was drinking because they didn't serve him. It was a BYOB - bring your own bottle - party.
But Barry Laushway, the lawyer for Childs, argued they should have kept him from driving based on past history alone.
Courrier, in particular, "knew Mr. Desormeaux was an alcoholic and that he had a very, very serious drinking problem," said Laushway.
Chadwick concluded that, if he were apportioning blame, he would hold Desormeaux 85 per cent responsible for the crash that injured Childs and the party hosts 15 per cent responsible.
But the judge did not, in fact, hold Zimmerman and Courrier liable.
He ruled it would put an "intolerable burden on all social hosts" to expect them to police the alcohol consumption of each and every guest.
If the Ontario government believes otherwise, said Chadwick, the province should pass legislation making hosts clearly liable rather than leaving it to the courts.
Ontario Court of Appeal, in reviewing the case, also rejected Childs' claim for damages, but for different legal reasons.
The three-judge panel said that, based on the particular circumstances of this case, the hosts couldn't be found liable.
But others, in different circumstances, could well be held to account.
"This judgment should not be interpreted to mean that social hosts are immune from liability," wrote Justice Karen Weiler.
"I do not foreclose social host liability to innocent third parties, particularly when it is shown that a social host knew that an intoxicated guest was going to drive a car and did nothing to protect the innocent third-party users of the road."
The Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments last December, delivers its judgment this Friday.
Even if Childs wins, it's not clear how much she can collect in damages. That would have to be sorted out at further hearings in the lower courts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?
