McGuiggan v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.
398 Mass. 152 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A social host may be liable under common law for injuries caused by an intoxicated adult guest's negligent operation of a motor vehicle if the host knew or reasonably should have known the guest was drunk and nevertheless furnished or permitted the guest to take an alcoholic drink.
Facts:
- On June 11, 1978, the McGuiggans hosted a high school graduation party for their 18-year-old son, Daniel, where alcoholic beverages were provided.
- Approximately 30 people attended, including four of Daniel's contemporaries, one of whom was 18-year-old James Magee, who consumed rum-cokes.
- Mr. McGuiggan indicated he might have given Magee one drink but did not observe him drinking further, and both he and Mrs. McGuiggan, who knew Magee was driving, believed Magee seemed perfectly normal and capable of driving before he left.
- Other passengers in the vehicle, including Daniel, also reported that Magee appeared sober.
- Magee himself admitted to having consumed four or five rum-cokes that evening.
- Shortly after leaving the party, while Magee was driving on Lowell Street, Daniel McGuiggan leaned out of the vehicle, struck a cement post, and died about four hours later.
- Approximately three hours after Magee departed, a breathalyzer test showed his blood alcohol content was .140, which a physician's expert opinion indicated would have been between .185 and .215 three hours earlier, a level suggesting unmistakable intoxication for a non-tolerant person.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel McGuiggan's estate brought a claim against the McGuiggans (social hosts) and the telephone company.
- The McGuiggans moved for summary judgment in the trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court entered a separate judgment in favor of the McGuiggans.
- The case was taken for direct appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
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 owe a duty of care to a third person injured by an adult guest's negligent operation of a motor vehicle, if the guest became intoxicated at the host's party and the host knew or reasonably should have known of the guest's intoxication when serving alcohol?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
No, the social hosts, the McGuiggans, are not liable based on the facts presented in their motion for summary judgment, but social host liability could be imposed under certain circumstances. The court would recognize a social host's liability to a person injured by an intoxicated guest's negligent operation of a motor vehicle where the social host knew or reasonably should have known that their guest was drunk, nevertheless gave or permitted the guest to take an alcoholic drink, and thereafter, because of intoxication, the guest negligently operated a motor vehicle causing the third person's injury. While acknowledging differences between social hosts and commercial vendors, the court rejects the traditional view that the drinker's consumption is the sole proximate cause. The crucial consideration is the guest’s apparent condition when served. On the record, there was no evidence that the McGuiggans knew Magee was intoxicated or that he was obviously intoxicated at any relevant time, including when he served himself or received his last drink. Testimony from the McGuiggans and other passengers indicated Magee appeared sober when he left. Therefore, the evidence did not create a material factual dispute regarding what the McGuiggans knew or should have known about Magee's sobriety at the time alcohol was provided.
Concurring - Lynch, J.
No, the social hosts should not be found liable, and the court should not create a new rule for social host liability. Justice Lynch concurred in the result that the McGuiggans were not liable but disagreed with the majority's statements (dictum) outlining when such liability would attach. He argued for following the traditional view that the drinker's voluntary consumption alone is the proximate cause of injuries. He emphasized that resolving such conflicting social policies should be left to the Legislature, not the judiciary, citing concerns about juries' potential for hindsight bias and sympathy. He also worried about the burden on homeowners, who lack the insurance and control of commercial establishments, and suggested that imposing liability on hosts might inadvertently diminish the perceived responsibility of the drunk driver.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant shift in Massachusetts common law by rejecting the traditional 'drinker alone' proximate cause theory for social hosts and establishing a framework for potential liability. Although the specific defendants were not found liable due to lack of evidence, the court's explicit recognition of a duty sets a new precedent. This decision aligns Massachusetts with a growing national trend to hold individuals accountable for foreseeable harm related to serving alcohol, particularly in the context of impaired driving, requiring hosts to be more vigilant about guests' intoxication levels.
