SJC will soon rule on your duty to drunken companions
Posted: Tue May 08, 2001 8:14 pm
Some of you may remember the case that I reported several weeks ago concerning a person's liability in connection with whether or not a companion(s) of a person may have liability or a duty to safeguard a fellow drinker who becomes very intoxicated.
The case was Panagakos v. Walsh. In this case a tavern owner is suing the companions of a man left in a drunken condition and who
left the tavern after companions had departed.
The man walked along the highway and was truck and killed. The tavern owner got 30 days in the slam resulting from criminal charges stemming from the accident and paid an undisclosed settlement with the parents of the decedent. Tavern keeper sought contribution from the companions.
The companions had provided fake ID's for the decedent.
At the trial level, the defendant companions won a motion for dismissal of the case, but the Appeals Court ruled that the tavern keeper could seek contribution. That was what I had reported.
The case is now before the Supreme Judicial Court (the SJC). Lawyers for the defendants argue that upholding the opinion of the Appeals Court would leave open the possibility that social companions who furnish alcohol may be liable for injuries suffered as a result of one's own viluntary intoxication, thus imposing a distinct duty on social companions where there was none in the past. Attorneys for the tavern say that holding the companions liable would be consistent with the general tort (wrongdoing) principle that when people leave others in dangerous situations, especially when they contributed to the danger, there can be liability.
This may be important to dram shop keepers, who can then open the purses of the companions and the total exposure.
Philisophical questions are also raised in the question of : Does concern for public safety warrant imposition of a duty to act as one's "brother's keepers" and take affirmative steps to insure their well-being? The reportin Lawyer's Weekly asks if the companions had placed their friend in a cab? What if they simply left him money for a cab? Or had left hime with a phone number of someone to call for a ride? How far would they need to go to fulfill their duty?
Although the SJC may not addrtess all of the sweeping questions arising out the the Panagakos case, the public and the legal community will be awaiting the decision with great expectation.
Can you ever go out with a friend or groups of friends in a party atmosphere where drinking is involved and not think of this case, even if you do not have one drink?
The case was Panagakos v. Walsh. In this case a tavern owner is suing the companions of a man left in a drunken condition and who
left the tavern after companions had departed.
The man walked along the highway and was truck and killed. The tavern owner got 30 days in the slam resulting from criminal charges stemming from the accident and paid an undisclosed settlement with the parents of the decedent. Tavern keeper sought contribution from the companions.
The companions had provided fake ID's for the decedent.
At the trial level, the defendant companions won a motion for dismissal of the case, but the Appeals Court ruled that the tavern keeper could seek contribution. That was what I had reported.
The case is now before the Supreme Judicial Court (the SJC). Lawyers for the defendants argue that upholding the opinion of the Appeals Court would leave open the possibility that social companions who furnish alcohol may be liable for injuries suffered as a result of one's own viluntary intoxication, thus imposing a distinct duty on social companions where there was none in the past. Attorneys for the tavern say that holding the companions liable would be consistent with the general tort (wrongdoing) principle that when people leave others in dangerous situations, especially when they contributed to the danger, there can be liability.
This may be important to dram shop keepers, who can then open the purses of the companions and the total exposure.
Philisophical questions are also raised in the question of : Does concern for public safety warrant imposition of a duty to act as one's "brother's keepers" and take affirmative steps to insure their well-being? The reportin Lawyer's Weekly asks if the companions had placed their friend in a cab? What if they simply left him money for a cab? Or had left hime with a phone number of someone to call for a ride? How far would they need to go to fulfill their duty?
Although the SJC may not addrtess all of the sweeping questions arising out the the Panagakos case, the public and the legal community will be awaiting the decision with great expectation.
Can you ever go out with a friend or groups of friends in a party atmosphere where drinking is involved and not think of this case, even if you do not have one drink?