Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:11:02 -0600

From: Lewis Klar

Subject: Childs v. Desormeaux

The duty to one's patrons in the commercial host situation under Canadian law does not merely extend to owing them a duty to stop serving once they are so drunk so as to be unable to make rational decisions.

It extends to them from the moment they walk into the bar. The mere serving of alcohol to them so as to make them less than capable of getting home safely can result in the liability of the commercial host.

(Some cases have suggested that the duty applies even if the patron drank minimally at the bar, but had been drinking elsewhere before he arrived).

I am not saying that I agree with these cases. I am pointing out that this is what Canadian law states and this is why some people find it offensive that a drunk patron can sue for injuries which he essentially causes to himself by driving home drunk. I think these judgments are defensible only on the basis that a court must first find that it is a negligent act to sell/give people so much liquor that they get inebriated, just as it is to allow an incompetent driver to drive your car. But if it is not negligent to sell/give alcohol in a bar/house then there should be no duty to see to it that the patrons get home safely. The commercial/social host is like everyone else - a disinterested by-stander, absent an unreasonable act which set up the dangers.

Lewis

>>> Robert Stevens 5/03/06 1:51 PM >>>

I admit that I think that goes too far. I can see an argument for saying that a host has assumed responsibility towards his guests, and that when they are so drunk as to be unable to make rational decisions he owes them a duty of care to stop serving. I didn't think that that was our hypothetical however.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>