Faulk v. Suzuki Motor Co.
851 P.2d 332, 9 Haw. App. 490, 1993 Haw. App. LEXIS 31 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Hawai‘i, a non-liquor licensee social host does not owe a non-statutory tort law duty to third persons for injuries caused by an intoxicated adult guest who was served alcohol at the host's residence and subsequently operates an automobile.
Facts:
- On May 11, 1988, Albert Cabral hosted a party at his house in Wailuku, where he purchased, controlled the supply, and served alcohol.
- Cabral observed Jaime M. Bumanglag become intoxicated and continued to serve him alcohol with that knowledge.
- Cabral knew of Bumanglag's intention to drive after leaving the party and that his alcohol consumption would impair his driving ability.
- Later on May 11, 1988, approximately 0.9 miles north of Olowalu, Bumanglag, with a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent (exceeding the legal limit), was driving an automobile.
- Bumanglag's automobile collided with a Suzuki Samurai vehicle driven by Ellen Faulk, causing Faulk serious injuries.
- The injuries sustained by Faulk were a foreseeable consequence of Cabral supplying and serving alcohol to Bumanglag at his premises.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 10, 1990, Ellen Faulk filed a complaint against Albert Cabral and other defendants in the circuit court (the trial court/court of first instance).
- Cabral was served on March 20, 1991, and filed his answer on May 13, 1991.
- Cabral filed a third-party complaint against Jaime M. Bumanglag on May 14, 1991.
- On May 23, 1991, Cabral moved for summary judgment regarding Faulk’s claims against him.
- Faulk filed a memorandum in opposition on July 25, 1991, requesting a six-month delay for formal discovery.
- At the July 30, 1991 hearing, the circuit court orally granted Cabral’s motion for summary judgment.
- The circuit court entered a final judgment on October 18, 1991, in accordance with its order granting summary judgment for Cabral.
- Faulk appealed the circuit court's October 18, 1991 judgment to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i (Faulk as appellant, Cabral as appellee).
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 non-liquor licensee social host in Hawai‘i owe a non-statutory tort law duty to protect third persons from personal injury or property damage caused by an intoxicated adult guest who consumed alcohol at the host's residence and subsequently operates an automobile?
Opinions:
Majority - Burns, C.J.
No, a non-liquor licensee social host in Hawai‘i does not owe a non-statutory tort law duty to third persons for injuries caused by an intoxicated adult guest. The court affirmed the circuit court's summary judgment, relying on the precedent set in Johnston v. KFC Nat'l Management Co., which held that Hawai‘i common law does not impose such a duty on non-liquor licensee social hosts. The court noted that Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 281-78(b)(1)(B) applies only to liquor licensees, and no statute imposes a tort duty on social hosts who furnish liquor to adult guests. The court found Faulk's attempts to distinguish her case from Johnston unconvincing, stating there was "no relevant difference." Furthermore, it reiterated Johnston's conclusion that there was "no clear judicial trend toward modifying the traditional common law, nor any statutory enactment or policy" to warrant imposing such a duty. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Faulk's request for additional discovery time, as the stipulated facts already presented an "exacerbating situation," and further discovery was unlikely to establish a different legal duty.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the Hawai‘i judiciary's reluctance to extend tort liability to non-liquor licensee social hosts for the actions of their intoxicated adult guests. By affirming summary judgment based on established precedent, the court signals that any significant change to social host liability in Hawai‘i would likely need to come from the legislature, rather than through judicial modification of common law. This decision creates a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to hold social hosts responsible, even in situations where the host had explicit knowledge of the guest's intoxication and intent to drive, underscoring the legal distinction between liquor licensees and private social hosts.
