7 replies to this topic

[raveman2001]

Supreme Court to rule on social host liability
Updated Tue. Jan. 17 2006 11:27 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

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

http://www.ctv.ca/se...0117?hub=Canada

[raveman2001]

I think in general society needs to promote individual responsibility. Everyone can't look over everyone's shoulder all the time. If there is real negligence that is one thing. For example if the person is clearly wasted and goes into the car while the host is waving goodbye on the porch with full knowledge that could be argued to be negligence. But in general I can't agree with a social host law.

[pebbles]

raveman2001 said:

I think in general society needs to promote individual responsibility. Everyone can't look over everyone's shoulder all the time. If there is real negligence that is one thing. For example if the person is clearly wasted and goes into the car while the host is waving goodbye on the porch with full knowledge that could be argued to be negligence. But in general I can't agree with a social host law.

I agree. When you go to a private party, you should be making the same concessions to planning that you do when you go to a bar. If you are going to be drinking, limit it to one or two - or PLAN to take a cab.   I think if people are going to be held responsible for the behaviour of guests after they leave the party, it sets a dangerous precedent.

[inspectorjason]

I voted "No".  

I'm in favor of individual responsibility and personal accountability.   If people are old enough to drink, then they are old enough to know to control themselves and not get behind the wheel of a car.  

It's a bit disturbing to me that this question is even being entertained in Canadian Supreme Court, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were entertained in our country as well, as the general trend over the decades has been towards decreased personal accountability.  

This reminds me of the old B-52's song, "Party Out Of Bounds", where they sing, "Who's to blame when a party gets out of hand?"   Maybe the B-52's can do the Public Service Announcement if this is signed into law.

[trix]

I also voted "no."  I don't know what the drunk driving threshold is in Canada, but in many US states it is quite low.  I support that, but it means you're often  legally 'not safe to drive'  before you're visibly intoxicated.  A host would have to be quizzing people about their body weight and how much they had to eat that day to guess whether they would be over or under.

Even if someone was visibly intoxicated . . . a host should have their house in lockdown so no one can slip out and get into a car?

[Lois]

Individual responsibility is the way to go on this one.  It puts hosts in an impossible position, end a social gathering restraining people - calling the police when people insist they are okay to drive.

Bottom line it's an individual's responsibility to obey the law and to take the consequences if they don't.

[OldManRay]

Lois said:

Individual responsibility is the way to go on this one. It puts hosts in an impossible position, end a social gathering restraining people - calling the police when people insist they are okay to drive.

Bottom line it's an individual's responsibility to obey the law and to take the consequences if they don't.

I agree that the bottom line is individual responsibility, but I believe if you see someone who's clearly drunk getting into their car, you have a moral responsibility to try to stop them. I don't know making this a legal responsibility serves any purpose, though, and as folks have already pointed out, it's impossible for hosts to act like police officers and restrain every party-goer who may or may not be drunk, so such a law seems pretty impractical.

[pebbles]

They just said on the news it could be five months or longer before the court reaches its decison.

As to the court itself ruiling on this issue, I see it as merely a means of formalising a set of standards for all legal people to follow when deciding cases where blame is being flung. I guess it's similar to having a research study about whether handwashing reduces infection rates - common sense will tell you that it does, but to have it ground into practice, you need the research empirical data.