Case Scenario 3: Related Case Childs v. Desormeaux, [2006] 1 SCR 643, 2006 SCC 18 (CanLII)
Torts — Duty of care — Social host liability — Accident caused by guest driving his car after leaving party intoxicated — Whether social host owes duty of care to third parties who may be injured by intoxicated guest. After leaving a party held in a private home, D, who was then impaired, drove his vehicle into oncoming traffic and collided head‑on with another vehicle. One of the passengers in the other vehicle was killed and three others seriously injured, including C. C brought an action against the hosts of the party for the injuries she suffered. Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal concluded, for different reasons, that social hosts …show more content…
In the case of, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] it was determined that a duty of care would be owed only if two stages were satisfied. The first stage focuses on the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and whether they were close/proximate enough for a duty of care to be owed. If this were to be satisfied, then the second stage would be consulted which asks: Are there any policy considerations to limit the scope of the duty? The trial judge in the case of Childs v. Desormeaux found the first stage fulfilled because he believed the car accident injuring someone else should have been reasonably foreseeable by the hosts since they were aware of their guest’s heavy alcohol drinking history. However, the judge stated that by policy considerations, “It would be wrong to impose a duty of care on the hosts to third parties injured by their guests”. When the Supreme Court of Appeal applied this precedent, they found that the relationship between the parties was not sufficient to justify imposition of a duty so the action was dismissed …show more content…
When I analyze the significance of the two stages needed to impose a duty of care relative to this case, I don’t believe that the first stage was satisfied. I don’t think the social hosts could have possibly foreseen their guest injuring a third party on the road in a car accident – especially since their guest let them know he was okay to drive. I also believe the hosts should not be held liable for the injuries to the third party because they didn’t supply or serve the alcohol consumed by their guest that ultimately lead to the head-on collision on the road - they were merely the hosts of the venue. Furthermore, when analyzing the second stage of whether policy considerations limit the scope of the duty, an important factor comes to mind. This being that there is no law that prohibits the consumption of alcohol at a private social event and/or operating a motorized vehicle with alcohol in your system. The law comes into play when the concentration of alcohol in the driver’s blood surpasses the legal limit. Therefore, when the guest said he was okay to drive, it could have been reasonably assumed that he was not over the legally allowed limit to drive. All in all, I agree with the court’s judgement to dismiss the action of imposing a duty of care on the social hosts for the injuries to a third party on the
Torts — Duty of care — Social host liability — Accident caused by guest driving his car after leaving party intoxicated — Whether social host owes duty of care to third parties who may be injured by intoxicated guest. After leaving a party held in a private home, D, who was then impaired, drove his vehicle into oncoming traffic and collided head‑on with another vehicle. One of the passengers in the other vehicle was killed and three others seriously injured, including C. C brought an action against the hosts of the party for the injuries she suffered. Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal concluded, for different reasons, that social hosts …show more content…
In the case of, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] it was determined that a duty of care would be owed only if two stages were satisfied. The first stage focuses on the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and whether they were close/proximate enough for a duty of care to be owed. If this were to be satisfied, then the second stage would be consulted which asks: Are there any policy considerations to limit the scope of the duty? The trial judge in the case of Childs v. Desormeaux found the first stage fulfilled because he believed the car accident injuring someone else should have been reasonably foreseeable by the hosts since they were aware of their guest’s heavy alcohol drinking history. However, the judge stated that by policy considerations, “It would be wrong to impose a duty of care on the hosts to third parties injured by their guests”. When the Supreme Court of Appeal applied this precedent, they found that the relationship between the parties was not sufficient to justify imposition of a duty so the action was dismissed …show more content…
When I analyze the significance of the two stages needed to impose a duty of care relative to this case, I don’t believe that the first stage was satisfied. I don’t think the social hosts could have possibly foreseen their guest injuring a third party on the road in a car accident – especially since their guest let them know he was okay to drive. I also believe the hosts should not be held liable for the injuries to the third party because they didn’t supply or serve the alcohol consumed by their guest that ultimately lead to the head-on collision on the road - they were merely the hosts of the venue. Furthermore, when analyzing the second stage of whether policy considerations limit the scope of the duty, an important factor comes to mind. This being that there is no law that prohibits the consumption of alcohol at a private social event and/or operating a motorized vehicle with alcohol in your system. The law comes into play when the concentration of alcohol in the driver’s blood surpasses the legal limit. Therefore, when the guest said he was okay to drive, it could have been reasonably assumed that he was not over the legally allowed limit to drive. All in all, I agree with the court’s judgement to dismiss the action of imposing a duty of care on the social hosts for the injuries to a third party on the