The Appeals Court ruled that a person hurt by a drunk driver could not sue the driver's drinking companions under a theory of social-host liability. The injured plaintiff argued that because the driver and his friends drank together on a weekly basis and took turns picking up the bar tab, the group was essentially a drinking club where each member was responsible for ensuring that fellow members did not pose a threat to public safety. The Appeals Court disagreed, affirming a trial judge's summary judgment for the defendants.
It cannot reasonably be argued that the common practice of going to eating and drinking establishments with companions, each participant paying a fair share of the charges, imposes social host liability on each member of the group in the event one individual visibly drinks to excess and causes damage afterward.
The Appeals Court is sending a message that, in a restaurant or bar setting, friends, and companions should not be held legally responsible for being generous by picking up the tab.
The idea that someone buying a round would make him legally liable always struck me as just wrong. It's the bartender's job to make a judgment as to whether a customer should be drinking. The Superior Court and the Appeals Court are both saying, this be an issue for bartenders.
On the evening in 2001, four friends met for drinks. For the prior 18 months, the foursome met regularly at various establishments for after-work drinks on Fridays. During that time, they developed an informal system of rotating payments, where each person would take turns paying the bill. If that didn't happen, they would divide the bill equally regardless of the amount each person ordered. Over a period of 4 hours, John Doe consumed four or five hand poured rum and coke drinks served in 15-ounce glasses.
After four hours, one of the friends paid the tab. Then John Doe and friend ordered yet another drink, this time with whiskey. Later that evening, John Doe drove his vehicle in the wrong direction on the southbound portion of Route 95 in Wakefield. He struck a vehicle driven by the plaintiff, causing serious physical injuries.
On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the friend was a social host because he entertained the others by paying for the drinks. The plaintiff also maintained that the foursome's payment arrangements rendered them essentially hosts. The plaintiff argued that since the defendants knew John Doe was intoxicated, they had a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure he did not pose a threat to the public.
The Appeals Court rejected those arguments as too broad. As the judge explained, sharing the check is not the same as being a host.
A true host in a practical sense owns or provides the liquor served to guests, and consequently is in a position to cut off that supply in the event that he observes that a guest is becoming intoxicated.
(Source: Massachusetts Lawyer Weekly)
