Home \|\| About KDR \|\| Weekly Feature Archive
Top court says party hosts not responsible for guests who drive drunk CBC News \|\| May 08, 2006 Canadians are not responsible for making sure their house guests don't drive away drunk, the Supreme Court of Canada said on Friday. The top court ruled that Zoe Childs cannot sue the people who let a known drunk leave their party in Ottawa and drive away in 1999. The court unanimously ruled against her suit for damages. Childs was left paralyzed when Desmond Desormeaux slammed his car into the one she was riding in. Her boyfriend was killed in the collision. Desormeaux, an alcoholic with previous drunk-driving convictions, had just left a New Year's Eve house party and had more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system. He was jailed in 2000 for 10 years, in what was thought to be the country's longest sentence for impaired driving causing death. After the criminal case was completed, Childs filed suit against Desormeaux and against the hosts of the party. The case against the hosts reached the top court earlier this year, when her lawyer, Barry Laushway, argued that the crash was predictable, and that the hosts should have seen it coming because they knew Desormeaux was unfit to drive. Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com "Whatever the test is, we say it has to be more than what these people did — which is absolutely nothing," he said. Proponents of tougher drunk-driving laws, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have said private party hosts should meet the same standards that apply to bars, which are responsible for drinkers. Jeremy Debeer, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wonders how far people would have to go to prevent their guests from drinking and driving should Childs win her case. "Do they have to ask their guest if they're OK to drive?" he asked. "Do they have to offer to call a cab? Actually call a cab? Physically restrain a guest from leaving? Call the police after the guest has left?" "There's a whole spectrum in terms of the standard we're going to hold social hosts to." Eric Williams, the lawyer for the hosts, argued in court that his clients had not served Desormeaux the alcohol and could not have known how much he had consumed or exactly how drunk he was when he drove off. Williams also argued that a finding of social host liability in the case could unfairly burden any Canadian who has friends over to share a drink. Lawyers for the Insurance Board of Canada made similar arguments in court, predicting a spike in both lawsuits and insurance premiums if the Supreme Court rules in Childs' favour. About KDR \| \| Home \| \| Weekly Features Archive	Weekly Weekly Features Archive
In Depth What Is Wrong With Canada Recent 9-11 News Suppressed by the Media Aspartame: The Sweetest Killer The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave Knowledge Driven Look at Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties
Archive February March April 2006 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 01 02 03 04 05 06 Weekly Features

Home || About KDR || Weekly Feature Archive

Top court says party hosts not responsible for guests who drive drunk

CBC News || May 08, 2006

Canadians are not responsible for making sure their house guests don't drive away drunk, the Supreme Court of Canada said on Friday.

The top court ruled that Zoe Childs cannot sue the people who let a known drunk leave their party in Ottawa and drive away in 1999.

The court unanimously ruled against her suit for damages.

Childs was left paralyzed when Desmond Desormeaux slammed his car into the one she was riding in. Her boyfriend was killed in the collision.

Desormeaux, an alcoholic with previous drunk-driving convictions, had just left a New Year's Eve house party and had more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system.

He was jailed in 2000 for 10 years, in what was thought to be the country's longest sentence for impaired driving causing death.

After the criminal case was completed, Childs filed suit against Desormeaux and against the hosts of the party.

The case against the hosts reached the top court earlier this year, when her lawyer, Barry Laushway, argued that the crash was predictable, and that the hosts should have seen it coming because they knew Desormeaux was unfit to drive.

Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com

"Whatever the test is, we say it has to be more than what these people did — which is absolutely nothing," he said.

Proponents of tougher drunk-driving laws, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have said private party hosts should meet the same standards that apply to bars, which are responsible for drinkers.

Jeremy Debeer, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wonders how far people would have to go to prevent their guests from drinking and driving should Childs win her case.

"Do they have to ask their guest if they're OK to drive?" he asked. "Do they have to offer to call a cab? Actually call a cab? Physically restrain a guest from leaving? Call the police after the guest has left?"

"There's a whole spectrum in terms of the standard we're going to hold social hosts to."

Eric Williams, the lawyer for the hosts, argued in court that his clients had not served Desormeaux the alcohol and could not have known how much he had consumed or exactly how drunk he was when he drove off.

Williams also argued that a finding of social host liability in the case could unfairly burden any Canadian who has friends over to share a drink.

Lawyers for the Insurance Board of Canada made similar arguments in court, predicting a spike in both lawsuits and insurance premiums if the Supreme Court rules in Childs' favour.

Maple Leaf Footer
About KDR | | Home | | Weekly Features Archive