Juliano v. Simpson
461 Mass. 527 (2012)
Rule of Law:
Social host liability for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest does not extend to an underage host who merely provides a location for underage guests to consume alcohol they obtained elsewhere; liability attaches only where a social host either serves alcohol or exercises effective control over the supply of alcohol.
Facts:
- Sixteen-year-old Rachel Juliano was a passenger in an automobile driven by nineteen-year-old Christian Dunbar.
- Dunbar and Juliano had just left a party hosted by nineteen-year-old Jessica A. Simpson at her home.
- Jessica's father, Peter Simpson, was not home at the time of the party, leaving Jessica in sole control of the premises.
- On their way to the party, Dunbar obtained a 'thirty-pack' of beer and a bottle of rum at a package store and brought the alcohol to Jessica's house.
- Over the course of the evening, Dunbar consumed one or two mixed drinks and six or seven beers that he had brought to the party.
- Jessica also drank beer from a supply she had obtained, but she neither consumed Peter's alcoholic beverages nor offered them to her guests.
- After an argument outside the house, Jessica proposed to drive Juliano and Dunbar home, noting that Juliano had consumed too much alcohol to drive.
- Dunbar insisted that he would drive Juliano home, and shortly after they left Jessica's residence, the automobile struck a utility pole, causing serious injuries to Rachel Juliano.
Procedural Posture:
- Rachel Juliano and her parents filed a complaint in the Superior Court, initially naming Christian Dunbar and Peter Simpson as defendants, but later adding Jessica Simpson.
- The plaintiffs asserted various common-law negligence claims against the defendants.
- A Superior Court judge granted summary judgment on most counts against the Simpsons, stemming from a fourth amended complaint, but notably not on the negligence claim against Jessica.
- The plaintiffs then filed a fifth amended complaint, asserting additional claims against Peter and Jessica, specifically alleging Jessica was negligent for knowingly allowing underage persons to possess alcohol on property under her control, in violation of G. L. c. 138, § 34.
- The Superior Court judge, sua sponte, ruled that the plaintiffs had presented insufficient evidence to support their allegations of social host liability on these new claims and dismissed them.
- The judge ordered entry of separate and final judgment on the dismissed claims against Jessica, permitting an appeal to proceed while claims against other defendants remained pending.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted the plaintiffs’ application for direct appellate review of the dismissed social host liability claims against Jessica.
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 common-law social host duty of care extend to an underage host who does not supply alcohol to underage guests but merely provides a location where they are permitted to consume alcohol they obtained elsewhere, making the host liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest?
Opinions:
Majority - Duffly, J.
No, a common-law social host duty of care does not extend to an underage host who merely provides a location for underage guests to consume alcohol they brought themselves, as liability attaches only where a host serves alcohol or exercises effective control over its supply. The court declined to expand the scope of social host liability under common law. First, G. L. c. 138, § 34, which criminalizes allowing underage possession of alcohol on one's property, does not create a private right of action for tort liability, and its violation is only 'some evidence' of negligence, not negligence per se; a duty must exist independently. Reviewing precedents, the court affirmed its consistent position from cases like McGuiggan v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co. and Langemann v. Davis, that liability requires the host to have actually served or made alcohol available. Subsequent decisions, including Ulwick v. DeChristopher (involving an underage host) and Cremins v. Clancy, reinforced that merely owning or controlling property where drinking occurred, without providing alcohol or exercising effective control over its supply, did not create liability. The court also cited policy considerations from Ulwick, doubting a social host's ability to effectively police guests' own alcohol and noting potential for counterproductive enforcement. It highlighted the uncertain scope of liability under an expanded rule and the Legislature's repeated refusals to add a civil liability component to G. L. c. 138, § 34, suggesting a lack of 'community consensus' for expansion. Furthermore, a national view showed no broad consensus, with only one state's highest court imposing such a duty by common law.
Concurring - Botsford, J.
Yes, an underage host should not be liable, but the majority's primary reasons for declining to expand social host liability generally, specifically regarding public policy and an absence of clear social values, are flawed. Justice Botsford concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority's principal reasoning. She argued that the policy considerations from Ulwick (difficulty controlling guests' own liquor) are misplaced, as the proposed expansion is about knowingly providing a venue for underage drinking, suggesting the host should not have allowed the party in the first place. She also contended that a 'widespread social consensus' does exist regarding the significance of underage drinking and driving and society's commitment to preventing it, evidenced by extensive legislative efforts (G. L. c. 138, §§ 34, 34A, 34B, 34C, G. L. c. 90, §§ 24). However, she ultimately deferred to the Legislature, noting its comprehensive regulation of alcohol and recent rejections of civil liability bills, and the complex issues like insurance coverage. She stated that if the Legislature does not act within a reasonable time, the court should be inclined to change its common-law rule.
Concurring - Gants, J.
No, an underage host who does not supply alcohol should not be liable, but the court should limit its holding to underage hosts and consider adult hosts (21+) separately. Justice Gants agreed with the judgment regarding an underage host but argued for limiting the holding to the specific facts of an underage host. He believed that imposing liability on a legally-aged adult host who knowingly allows underage guests to bring and drink alcohol in their home, especially if it leads to tragic consequences, might be appropriate. He cited the legislative history of G. L. c. 138, § 34, which was spurred by a tragic accident at a party hosted by an adult. He questioned whether the 'practical difficulties' of policing guests' alcohol (from Ulwick) apply with equal force when an adult host (21+) is present, especially given the criminal statute's enactment. He also criticized the majority's reliance on 'legislative nonaction' (rejected bills) as proof of lacking community consensus, calling it a 'fallacy' due to the complexities of the legislative process. He further argued that concerns about liability insurance are 'overstated' and should not hinder common-law evolution. He contended that determining 'control' of premises for civil liability would not be unduly difficult for courts.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's conservative approach to expanding social host liability, drawing a clear distinction between actively providing or controlling alcohol and merely providing a venue. It signals the court's preference for legislative action on civil liability in this area, rather than judicial expansion, despite acknowledgments of the severity of underage drinking and driving. Future cases attempting to establish social host liability will continue to face high hurdles, needing to demonstrate direct service or effective control over the alcohol supply. The concurring opinions, however, suggest a potential openness among some justices to re-evaluating the rule, particularly for adult hosts, if the legislature fails to act on the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
