Setonia Supreme Court: Memo on Social Host Liability

Memo on Social Host Liability
Student Name
University
Course
Instructor Name
Due Date
Setonia Supreme Court: Memo on Social Host Liability
The Supreme Court of Setonia has recently heard a case brought by a pedestrian severely injured in an accident by an intoxicated driver. Mentioned among the defendants is a couple who hosted a party the driver attended before the accident. When he left the party, the car driver was drunk, which was evident to everyone, including the host and the hostess. However, none of the people at the party made an effort to stop the driver from driving while under the influence. As established, the issue brought before the court involves social host liability. The court has never resolved this issue, the Setonia court, and therefore, there is a need to consider similar or related cases from different jurisdictions. This memo informs two recent cases: Hart v. Ivey and Shea v. Matassa. Based on the different points of argument in the two cases, the current memo looks at how the contradicting outcomes were arrived at and provided advice on the way forward in the current case.
Case 1: Hart v. Ivey (1992)
In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants served a person under the age of 21 years an alcoholic beverage and further allowed the driver to leave the premises in his car while intoxicated. Therefore, the action brought before the court is based on the defendants’ negligence. The negligence claim is based on two separate grounds. First is that, per se, the defendants were negligent for serving a minor an alcoholic beverage contrary to
N.C.G.S. ß 18B-302. Secondly, the plaintiff contended that the defendants had served an alcoholic beverage to a person who was already under the influence and would drive an automobile in the streets/highway afterward.
In an earlier ruling, the Court of Appeal held that the defendant claims negligence because of serving an alcoholic beverage to a minor. In the second claim, the Court of Appeal ruled that the plaintiff did not state a claim under common law negligence principles. In the Supreme Court, however, the court disagreed with the Court of Appeal on both grounds holding that the plaintiffs had not stated a claim on the violation of N.C.G.S. ß 18B-302 but has stated a claim under the common law principles. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that it was an error (on the Court of Appeal) to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.
The defendants argued that “there is not a common-law negligence claim against a social host.” They further added that establishing such a claim will result in many implications. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the defendant, arguing that the court did not recognize a new claim. Instead, it was applying established negligence principles (those stated by plaintiffs). In its ruling, the court argued as follows:
* That N.C.G.S. ß 18B-302 is not a public safety statute intended to protect the plaintiffs (and the public). Its purpose, the court argued, was to stop minors from drinking alcoholic beverages. If it had been intended to protect the public, age limitation would not have been necessary. Further, the court found that this section does not restrict sales or give ...