The death of the party
Social host liability is lurking just beneath the surface of Canadian jurisprudence. Commercial establishments and employers have already been found liable for damage caused by guests who’ve drunk too much. Now, lawyers say it’s only a matter of time before a simple house party can lead to disastrous legal consequences.
By Laura Pratt
You invite some of your friends from the firm over after work. The liquor decanters are busy and the beer bottles clink. The pizza man comes and goes, the stereo gets cranked up, and the night goes on. Finally, your guests stumble down your front-porch steps, their laughter ringing out in the night air. You shut the door behind them and head upstairs. It was, you reflect, the perfect evening.
Until you hear the screech of tires and the crash some distance off. And then the police show up at your door half an hour later, grim faces lit by red-and-blue lights. And then things start getting a whole lot worse.
|
Provided a social host exercises common sense, there is very little chance of being found liable.
Geoff Aylward, St. John’s |
Host liability is a growing presence on the national radar screen, thanks in no small part to another growing trend: injuries and death related to the excessive consumption of alcohol. And the flames of controversy are being fanned by a handful of recent high-profile cases that have assigned responsibility for drunken accidents to a bar or even an employer that served the alcohol.
Servers’ liability has been well established in some provinces for many years: bars and nightclubs have been held liable for serving a customer too much alcohol and allowing him or her to leave the premises dangerously intoxicated. Ontario is the only province to formally legislate civil liability for commercial hosts (under the Liquor License Act), and several court cases there have raised concerns even higher. Courts in B.C. and Alberta have also made findings of commercial host liability.
Until recently, liability was normally restricted to these licensed establishments; lately, however, employers are increasingly on the hook for similar consequences flowing from office parties. And now there’s a growing anticipation that such responsibility will be extended to individuals who simply served too much punch at their housewarming party.
Such concerns don’t resonate in Quebec, however: a no-fault workers’ compensation Act and no-fault automobile liability have made host liability cases redundant, says labour lawyer Pierre Moreau of Rivest Schmidt in Montreal. The ruckus in Ontario causes barely a ripple: "There was a certain degree of amazement over here that an employer who had acted relatively responsibly could be held liable for this kind of thing," says Moreau.
There is similar lassitude in Atlantic Canada. "Within the legal community, there’s a sense of surprise," says Geoff Aylward, a litigator with Aylward, Chislett & Whitten in St. John’s and Chair of the CBA’s National Civil Litigation Section.
"There’s not a general awareness of the liability that social hosts may have in Newfoundland or other Atlantic provinces," he says. "It’s not something that most people are concerned about. Mostly, it’s dealt with more on the level of common sense and prudence than [with regard to] any concerns of legal responsibility."
Because there are so few cases of host liability — "it’s not as if this is something that has swept the country, with lawsuits popping up all over" — the average person shouldn’t worry too much, Aylward believes. "As a social host having a house party, provided you exercise common sense, under the current law, the chances of you being found liable are less than the chance of you being struck by lightning."
Jade Spalding, an insurance and litigation specialist with Cox Hanson in Fredericton, generally agrees. "People such as parents, employers, guardians and homeowners [might face] risks when hosting gatherings where alcohol is served," she says. "But does that mean you should cancel your neighbourhood Christmas party? I would say no."
But not everyone is so sanguine. In British Columbia, judges have found employers liable for the effects of serving too much alcohol, and the wording of their judgments is significant, says litigator Rod Hayley of Lawson Lundell in Vancouver. He points to one decision that said the issue of social-host liability was "a controversial and unsettled question" that might well engage the Supreme Court of Canada.
"Another said it was more appropriate to leave this expansion of the law to the government, basically ducking the whole question," says Hayley. "In the meantime, I think both employers and social hosts ought to be acting extremely conservatively. I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying, ‘Don’t worry if you’re a social host, you face no exposure.’ I think you do face exposure right now."
High-profile cases
Most Canadians became aware of the issue of host liability a couple of years ago, with the high-profile Ontario case of Hunt v. The Sutton Group. The plaintiff was attending an office Christmas party at which she consumed a great deal of alcohol. During and after the party and a visit to a bar afterwards, she refused three offers of assistance for getting home. She eventually tried to drive home and suffered permanent brain damage in a crash.
At trial, the employer and the bar were found jointly and severally liable for 25% of the damages. The judge declared that it wasn’t enough for an employer to simply offer rides: the boss "should have taken more aggressive action to stop her from driving, like taken her keys away, automatically called a cab for her or, if all else failed, called the police," says Shelley Timms, a former litigation lawyer now working in alcohol-risk management and dispute resolution in Toronto.
The Ontario Court of Appeal eventually overturned the ruling for reasons unrelated to servers’ liability and ordered a new trial, but the Court of Appeal decision failed to clear the air, says Timms. "They never dealt with the standard of care of the employer regarding service of alcohol during an employee event." The point will remain moot in this case: the two sides settled before the new trial could begin.
The Hunt case was the latest example of employers being held liable for serving alcohol at an event, but there hasn’t been a successful suit against a purely social host — yet. "That doesn’t mean it won’t happen," warns Timms, and indeed, one case now before the Ontario Court of Appeal threatens to redraw the entire landscape of liability.
In Childs v. Des Ormeaux, the defendant already had two convictions for impaired driving when he attended a New Year’s Eve party in 1999. The hosts (Dwight Courrier and Julie Zimmerman) were friends of the defendant; Courrier had even driven Des Ormeaux around town during his license suspensions. The defendant and his girlfriend showed up drunk at the party, spent two hours there and left visibly intoxicated.
Courrier asked simply "Are you okay?" before Des Ormeaux left and took no other action, even though there were beds set aside for overnight stays; Des Ormeaux and his girlfriend were reportedly obnoxious and the hosts were happy to see them go. Within minutes of his departure, Des Ormeaux’s car crashed into another vehicle containing four teenagers, killing one and rendering the plaintiff paraplegic. Three times the legal limit of alcohol was found in Des Ormeaux’s blood.
"Zoe [Childs] has tremendous financial need," says Barry Laushway of Prescott, Ontario, explaining the addition of Courrier and Zimmerman as defendants. "We also think it’s a very important social issue. If hosts start taking responsibility for people who are obviously and grossly impaired, we think it’s a good thing."
Childs lost at trial in her attempt to assign some liability to the hosts — but she appealed, and the Court of Appeal heard the case in November. Laushway says the trial judge "agreed with us on almost all the points, but refused to make the award, based on public policy reasons. He felt that if he did this, among other things, everybody’s insurance rates would go up, and he didn’t think he should do that."
But significantly, the judge did find that a duty of care exists between a host and his or her guests. "This was a BYOB party," Timms explains, "and [the judge] said there might be even a greater duty to supervise and monitor in BYOB cases." Indeed, the trial judge had little difficulty in finding causation, and would have adduced 15% liability to the hosts if not for his belief that the legislature, not courts, should create new grounds of action.
Laushway isn’t so sure about that. "This doesn’t extend to every party in Canada, unless you happen to know as much about your guest as this host [did], and unless someone performs as this guest did at the party," he argues. "We’ve talked to lots of people about this, and we have a sense that the public is prepared to accept the notion that, in very egregious circumstances such as this, there should be some responsibility on the part of the host."
In most cases, though, the public opinion in social-host litigation would side with the host, says Timms. Callers to CBC Radio’s Cross-Country Checkup following the Hunt decision, she reports, "were absolutely outraged that this woman could successfully sue her employer when she was the one who did the drinking." When Timms herself dealt with the issue on the radio last summer, the majority of callers asked, "Whatever happened to personal responsibility?"
Just the same, Timms believes that "something’s going to come down in this area. We’ve had a few judges who have said, ‘I have no problem finding liability,’ and Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a very powerful group. I think that strong voices like these will eventually get through."
Laushway agrees. "There will [eventually] be a finding of social-host liability that’s perfectly consistent with all the other principles of tort and negligence in Anglo-Canadian law," he predicts. "We would like it to be [the Childs] case, but regardless, we think it will happen."
In the meantime, erring on the side of caution remains the best course of action in an area of the law still in flux (see: "Deck the halls, but take precautions," National, December 2003, p. 12). Corporations can guard against potential lawsuits by speaking to staff before company festivities about the dangers of over-drinking, issuing written notice of company policies in this area, and providing for transportation home from events where liquor is served.
In particular, employers should avoid the temptation to provide an open bar — it’s nothing less than an invitation to drink excessively. And, says Timms, "you want to make sure that you don’t have a self-serve bar. [Hire] someone who’s trained by one of the provincial alcohol-training courses."
And if you’re simply holding a party at home and serving alcohol to your friends, make sure you take the same kinds of precautions and ensure your guests have a safe way home. It’s not just the legally advisable thing to do; it’s what friends are for.
Laura Pratt is a Toronto freelance writer.
Photo: Greg Locke
|
english
La fête est terminée
La responsabilité des hôtes se fait de plus en plus présente dans la jurisprudence canadienne. Et si ce n’était que la pointe de l’iceberg?
L’alcool coulait à flots et tous s’amusaient ferme. Sans contredit, il s’agissait d’une fête réussie. C’est la pensée qui vous venait à l’esprit alors que vous refermiez la porte derrière vos derniers invités. Mais, soudain, un crissement de pneus vient perturber votre allégresse.
La responsabilité des hôtes se fait de plus en plus visible en droit canadien. En plus de mettre en lumière le grand nombre de blessures et de morts causés par l’abus de l’alcool, elle est l’objet de polémique alimentée par de récents jugements trouvant responsables bars et employeurs pour des accidents causés par des chauffards ivres.
C’est que jusqu’à maintenant, ce type de responsabilité ne touchait que les établissements commerciaux servant de l’alcool. Cependant, les employeurs se retrouvent maintenant dans la mire pour des conséquences semblables découlant d’une fête de bureau. Un pas de plus et ce pourra être le tour du simple ami trop accueillant.
Cette crainte a commencé à se faire sentir suite à l’arrêt ontarien Hunt c. The Sutton Group où un employeur et un bar avaient été tenus responsables, en première instance, pour 25% des dommages subis par une conductrice qui avait pris le volant en état d’ébriété. Selon Shelley Timms, ancienne avocate maintenant spécialisée en gestion de risques liés à l’alcool, même si la Cour d’appel a ensuite renversé la décision pour d’autres motifs et ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès, le spectre du verdict de première instance dans Hunt est toujours dans l’air.
L’affaire Childs c. Des Ormeaux pourra confirmer ses dires puisque les simples hôtes d’une fête risquent de se retrouver responsables des dommages causés par un invité. Connaissant le passé houleux de leur « ami » condamné à deux reprises pour facultés affaiblies, ils se seraient contentés de seulement lui demander s’il allait bien avant de le laisser partir ivre de leur résidence. Une adolescente a été ensuite grièvement blessée dans un accident automobile causé par l’invité.
« Zoe [la demanderesse maintenant paraplégique] a de grands besoins financiers », déclare Barry Laushway pour expliquer l’inclusion des hôtes dans la poursuite. « Nous croyons aussi qu’il s’agit d’une question sociale très importante. »
Même si l’opinion publique semble plutôt prendre la défense des hôtes dans ce type de dossier, Laushway estime qu’on ne pourra renverser la vapeur. « [Éventuellement], les tribunaux trouveront responsables des hôtes dans une logique tout à fait en accord avec les principes de délit et de négligence en droit canadien », prédit-il. « Nous aimerions que ce soit dans l’affaire [Childs] mais nous croyons de toute façon que cela finira par se produire. »
Une menace qui se fait toutefois moins grande au Québec. Selon Pierre Moreau, les régimes de responsabilité sans faute pour les accidents de travail et les accidents automobiles rendent inapplicables certains jugements provenant d’autres provinces sur la responsabilité des hôtes. « Il y avait un certain degré d’étonnement [dans la communauté juridique québécoise] en constatant qu’un employeur qui avait agit d’une façon relativement raisonnable pouvait être trouvé responsable », d’ajouter Moreau.
Pour les hôtes, la prudence s’impose. Il demeure primordial pour les entreprises d’aborder avec leurs employés les questions de surconsommation, de bien faire connaître les politiques de la compagnie et d’offrir un mode de transport alternatif pour ceux qui ne peuvent rentrer chez-eux de façon sécuritaire. Il est aussi recommandé d’éviter de tenir un événement à bar ouvert, une invitation à boire en grande quantité.
Les mêmes précautions s’appliquent lorsque vous tenez une simple fête chez vous. Après tout, peut-il y avoir meilleure façon de démontrer votre amitié? |
