What is social host liability?

When Covid-19 restrictions are eventually eased it will be a good reason to throw a party. While many people will attend house parties, drink alcohol, and use cannabis, it is a sad fact that some of those people will drive home and crash their vehicles. With that in mind, if you plan to host a party you should be aware of something called social host liability.

Courts in Canada have grappled with the question of whether or not the host of a party owes a duty of care to intoxicated guests who leave and cause accidents. If such a duty of care existed, it would mean the host could be held liable for any personal injury or death as a result of their guest’s accident. This is known as social host liability. This blog will examine the legal principles of social host liability by looking at a recent case in which a guest at a party sought damages from the host for car accident that left him with serious injuries.

Legal principles of social host liability

The leading case in Canada regarding social host liability is Childs v. Desormeaux. It found that a host does not owe a duty of care to someone who is injured by the host’s intoxicated guest. Despite the finding in Childs, social host liability still crops up in courts.

The test for a duty of care breach

According to another leading social host liability case, Williams v. Richard, “…there is no clear formula for determining whether a duty of care is owed by social hosts to third parties or guests.” Instead, it is determined by the facts of the case and centres around two main issues: foreseeability and proximity.

Foreseeability of harm

A key test in determining whether there is a duty of care breach is foreseeability. In other words, did the host know or ought to have known that their guest was intoxicated or had plans to engage in a dangerous activity, such as impaired driving.

If the host had such knowledge and failed to act, the guest or an injured third party might have a claim. The onus is on the plaintiff – that is the person taking action against the social host – to establish the host failed to stop an intoxicated person leaving their party they knew posed a risk.

Facts relevant to foreseeability include signs the guest was intoxicated or whether the host could have reasonably foreseen the guest would engage in a dangerous activity.

Proximity/Something more

The other issue in determining whether a duty of care exists between a host and someone hurt as a result of a person intoxicated at their party is proximity. The plaintiff must establish there is a “special link” between the host and the intoxicated guest.

There has to be “something more” in the facts of the case that the host had a duty to act. Relevant facts include whether the host supplied the alcohol, the number of guests and whether risky behaviour, such as underage drinking, was occurring. Examples of proximity include inviting a guest to an inherently risky situation that the host creates or controls. According to Williams, “simply holding a house party where alcohol is served is not an invitation to participate in highly risky activity.” A wild house party with hundreds of guests who are underage drinking and using drugs, however, is an example of an inherently risky environment.

If there is a paternalistic relationship between the host and the guest, this too could establish a duty of care.

Recent social host liability action

A recent BC Supreme Court decision dealt with social host liability. In McCormick v. Plambeck, Calder McCormick argued Stephen and Lidia Pearson were liable for life-altering injuries he suffered as a passenger in a 2012 car crash. Mr. McCormick, who was 17 at the time, and the 18-year-old driver who died in the crash had attended a party hosted by the Pearsons before the accident.

The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that the Pearsons breached a duty of care by allowing a teenager to become intoxicated on their property and failing to stop him from leaving.

Chief justice Christopher Hinkson found that while the Pearsons arguably might have foreseen something like this happening at their party, they took reasonable steps to try to prevent it. This included taking car keys away from guests and Mrs. Pearson driving five people home.

Chief justice Hinkson said: “As hosts, the Pearsons had to take all reasonable steps to minimize the risks of harm to their guests, including the plaintiff. The standard is one of reasonableness, not perfection.”

He added: “It is never possible to eliminate all risks, and the Pearsons were not required to do so.”

A lesson for would-be party hosts

While the standard for establishing a host’s breach of a duty of care is quite high in Canada, it’s a good idea to keep a few guiding principles to prevent potential liability when hosting a party. Make sure you are not inviting guests to an inherently risky environment. If the party is out of control, there are more guests than you can handle and underage drinking and drug use are occurring, you could be found liable.

At the same time, be vigilant and take all reasonable steps to prevent any dangerous activities that might occur. This could include taking people’s car keys or arranging rides home.

If you need legal help with an insurance breach matter, you can call us free on 604-370-3050.