LIABILITY ISSUES

Social hosts were denied summary dismissal after a drunken guest got into an accident, injuring the plaintiff, after the guest had first made it home safely.

Williams v Richard, 2018 ONCA 889

FACTS AND ISSUES:

Mr. Williams and Mr. Richard were work colleagues and got together several times a week after work to drink beer. On the day in issue, Mr. Williams consumed approximately 15 cans of beer over the course of about 3 hours at the residence of Mr. Richard's mother, Eileen Richard. Beyond threatening to call the police, Mr. Richard did not do anything further to prevent Mr. Williams from driving drunk. Shortly after leaving Mrs. Richard's residence, Mr. Williams loaded his children in his car and drove the babysitter home.

Mr. Richard and Mrs. Richard accompanied his mother to a store to buy cigarettes. On their way back home, Mr. and Mrs. Richard came upon the scene of Mr. Williams' accident. Mr. Williams was ejected from the vehicle and died from his injuries. Mr. Williams' children were in the vehicle and were alleged to have sustained injuries.

Mr. Williams' children and wife commenced two actions that were premised on the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Richard breached their duty of care as social hosts. Mr. and Mrs. Richard brought a motion for summary judgement, asserting that they did not owe a duty of care to Mr. Williams' children. The motion judge granted the summary judgment application and stated that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish the existence of any duty of care owed by Mr. or Mrs. Richard. Alternatively, the motion judge relied on the case of John v Flynn and concluded that if a duty of care did exist, the duty expired when Mr. Williams arrived safely home before departing to drive the babysitter home.

This appeal raises the following issues:

  1. Did the motion judge err in her duty of care analysis regarding foreseeability and/or proximity?
  2. Did the motion judge err in her reliance on John?
  3. Should this court consider the issues of whether any residual policy considerations suggest a duty of care should not exist and whether the respondents met the applicable standard of care? If so, how do those issues impact the result?

To view the full article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.