Kelly v. Gwinnell
96 N.J. 538, 476 A.2d 1219 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A social host who serves liquor to an adult social guest, knowing the guest is intoxicated and will thereafter operate a motor vehicle, is liable for injuries inflicted on a third party as a result of the guest's negligent driving.
Facts:
- Defendant Donald Gwinnell spent one to two hours at the home of defendant Joseph Zak.
- While at his home, Zak served Gwinnell two or three drinks of scotch on the rocks.
- Zak accompanied Gwinnell to his car, chatted with him, and watched as Gwinnell drove away.
- Approximately twenty-five minutes later, Gwinnell's vehicle was involved in a head-on collision with a car driven by plaintiff Marie Kelly.
- Kelly sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision.
- A blood test administered to Gwinnell after the accident indicated a blood alcohol concentration of 0.286 percent.
- Kelly's expert witness concluded that Gwinnell must have been showing unmistakable signs of severe intoxication while at Zak's home.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Marie Kelly sued defendant Donald Gwinnell and his employer in the Law Division, a trial-level court.
- Gwinnell filed a third-party action against defendants Joseph and Catherine Zak, the social hosts.
- Kelly amended her complaint to name the Zaks as direct defendants.
- The Zaks moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Kelly.
- The trial court granted the Zaks' motion for summary judgment, and Kelly appealed.
- The Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey then reviewed the case.
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 serves liquor to an adult social guest, knowing the guest is intoxicated and will thereafter operate a motor vehicle, owe a duty of care to third parties who may be injured by the guest's negligent driving?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilentz, C.J.
Yes. A host who serves liquor to an adult social guest, knowing the guest is intoxicated and will operate a vehicle, owes a duty to third parties injured by the guest's resulting negligent driving. The court found that all elements of a conventional negligence claim—foreseeable risk, defendant's action creating that risk, and resulting foreseeable injury—were present. The central question was whether to impose a duty of care, which is a value judgment based on fairness and public policy. The court concluded that the strong public policy of reducing death and injury from drunken driving far outweighed concerns about interfering with social customs. This new duty is an extension of common law principles previously applied to liquor licensees and to social hosts serving minors, as the liability stems from the control of the liquor supply, not a profit motive. The decision is applied prospectively but also to the parties in this case.
Dissenting - Garibaldi, J.
No. The creation of social host liability is a radical departure from existing law with such extraordinary effects on average citizens that the issue should be resolved by the legislature, not the judiciary. The dissent argues that the legislature is better equipped to study the complex social and economic ramifications, such as the difficulty for a layperson to judge intoxication, the social pressures on a host, and the inability of a social host to spread the cost of liability insurance like a commercial establishment. The dissent distinguishes this case from those involving licensees or minors, noting the lack of expertise and control in a social setting. It further contends that the majority acts with scant knowledge of the problem's scope, as existing insurance schemes like the Uninsured Motorist Fund already provide remedies for many victims. The judiciary should defer to the legislature, which can weigh the policy considerations and craft a more nuanced solution.
Analysis:
This decision established a new cause of action in New Jersey by extending tort liability to social hosts for the actions of their intoxicated adult guests, a position contrary to the prevailing view in other jurisdictions at the time. By grounding its holding in common-law negligence and public policy, the court demonstrated its willingness to judicially create new duties to address pressing social problems like drunk driving, rather than deferring to the legislature. The case significantly impacts social behavior by placing a legal duty on hosts to monitor their guests' alcohol consumption and prevent them from driving while intoxicated. It also has broad implications for homeowners' insurance, as it created a new area of potentially significant financial liability for ordinary citizens.
