Ennabe v. Manosa
168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 440, 58 Cal. 4th 697, 319 P.3d 201 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Charging an admission fee or cover charge to a party where alcoholic beverages are provided constitutes a 'sale' of alcohol under California Business & Professions Code § 23025. A non-licensed social host who sells alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor is not shielded by statutory social host immunity and may be held civilly liable for resulting injuries or death.
Facts:
- Jessica Mañosa, a minor, hosted a party at a vacant rental property owned by her parents, without their knowledge or consent.
- Mañosa and two friends pooled approximately $60 to purchase rum, tequila, and beer for the party.
- Mañosa directed a friend to act as a 'bouncer' at the party's entrance, charging uninvited guests an admission fee of $3 to $5.
- The money collected from the admission fees, totaling $50 to $60, was used to purchase additional alcohol during the party.
- Thomas Garcia, a minor who was not invited, paid a $20 entrance fee for himself and several friends to enter the party.
- Garcia was visibly intoxicated when he arrived at the party and proceeded to consume alcohol provided by Mañosa.
- After becoming rowdy, Garcia was escorted off the premises by other guests, including Andrew Ennabe.
- While driving away from the party, Garcia ran over and killed Ennabe.
Procedural Posture:
- Faiez and Christina Ennabe filed a wrongful death action against Jessica Mañosa in the state trial court.
- Mañosa moved for summary judgment, arguing she was immune from liability under California's social host immunity statutes.
- The trial court granted Mañosa's motion for summary judgment.
- The Ennabes, as appellants, appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Mañosa, the appellee.
- The Ennabes, as petitioners, were granted a petition for review by the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a social host who charges an entrance fee to a party where alcoholic beverages are provided 'sell' alcohol within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code § 25602.1, thereby losing statutory immunity from civil liability for injuries caused by an obviously intoxicated minor who consumed the alcohol?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
Yes, a social host who charges an entrance fee to a party where alcoholic beverages are provided 'sells' alcohol within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code § 25602.1. While California statutes generally grant civil immunity to social hosts who furnish alcohol, this immunity is not absolute. An explicit statutory exception exists under § 25602.1 for 'any other person who sells, or causes to be sold, any alcoholic beverage, to any obviously intoxicated minor.' The court determined that the term 'sale' is defined broadly in the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (§ 23025) as 'any transaction whereby, for any consideration, title to alcoholic beverages is transferred from one person to another.' The payment of an entrance fee constitutes 'consideration,' and title to the alcohol is transferred when a paying guest consumes a drink. This indirect transaction falls squarely within the statutory definition of a sale, regardless of whether a profit was intended or made. Therefore, by charging an admission fee, Mañosa engaged in a sale of alcohol, stripping her of social host immunity and creating a triable issue of fact as to her liability for Ennabe's death.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of California's social host immunity by clarifying the definition of a 'sale' of alcohol in a non-commercial setting. It establishes that introducing a commercial element, such as a cover charge, transforms a host from one who merely 'furnishes' alcohol to one who 'sells' it, thereby exposing them to potential liability under § 25602.1. The ruling creates a clear warning for party hosts: to retain statutory immunity, social gatherings must remain strictly non-commercial. This precedent will likely deter hosts from charging for parties where alcohol is served and will influence how liability is assessed in future cases involving injuries caused by intoxicated minors at such events.
