A trial underway in B.C. Supreme Court will determine whether people who host parties in their home are responsible if a guest gets drunk, drives away and causes an accident.
In 2012, Ryan Plambeck, age 18, and Calder McCormick, then 17, attended a party on Salt Spring Island. The event started out as a birthday party, and turned into a graduation celebration as kids from around the neighbourhood showed up.
When the two young men left, both had blood-alcohol levels above the legal limit. They found an unlocked car next door with the ignition keys in and drove away, with Plambeck at the wheel.
A short way down the road, Plambeck lost control of the car and crashed it. He died at the scene.
McCormick was thrown out of the vehicle when it rolled over, and suffered massive injuries, including head trauma that has left him permanently impaired. He is suing the owners of the house where the party was held, claiming they should not have let an underage teenager drink on their property, and should not have allowed him to leave while inebriated.
I confess I have no idea why this lawsuit is going ahead. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, unanimously, that party hosts cannot be held legally liable for letting their guests drive away drunk.
That case involved a young woman, Zoe Childs, who was permanently paralyzed when a drunk driver plowed into the car Childs was riding in.
She sued both the driver and the hosts of a party that the driver had attended. He was later found to have consumed more than twice the legal limit of alcohol.
The court’s ruling was unambiguous: “I conclude that as a general rule, a social host does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by a guest who has consumed alcohol,” wrote then-chief justice Beverley McLachlin.
McLachlin went on to say that while the owners of pubs and restaurants do have such a duty, a social host “neither undertakes nor is expected to monitor the conduct of guests on behalf of the public.”
Now there might be nuances in the Salt Spring case that walk around the top court’s ruling. But as a matter of principle, it’s hard to see how a party host can be held responsible.
What would that duty involve? Stopping a guest from drinking too much? How are you to know?
Bartenders are trained to watch how much a patron has consumed, and when to call a halt. Their facilities are licensed, and there are limits on attendance.
The ordinary homeowner has no such training, and if it’s a busy party, no practical way of keeping tabs on each guest.
And if you do suspect someone has drunk too much, what then? Are you supposed to physically prevent them from leaving? How does that work? You could be charged with assault.
Call the police? Maybe, but not much good if the guest has already left.
Now if a homeowner has third-party liability insurance, that might offer some protection. Yet most such policies offer limited amounts of coverage — perhaps $2 million. In the Zoe Childs case, she sued for $6 million. It’s unlikely most homeowners would be covered in the event of such an award. Basically, they lose everything.
And this is the heart of the matter. Holding party hosts responsible for the behaviour of their guests turns such events into a trainwreck waiting to happen.
It’s impossible not to be sympathetic with victims such as McCormick and Childs. Their lives have been ruined by the actions of others.
But the proper means of redress is to hold accountable the person who caused those injuries — the drunk driver.
Spreading the blame to party givers creates unlimited jeopardy where none, fairly speaking, should exist.
