Nichols v. Progressive Northern Insurance
308 Wis. 2d 17, 2008 WI 20, 746 N.W.2d 220 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A social host is not liable under a common-law negligence theory for injuries caused by an intoxicated underage guest when the host did not provide or procure the alcohol, even if the host was aware of the underage drinking on their property. Public policy considerations, particularly the lack of a sensible stopping point for liability, preclude such a claim.
Facts:
- On the night of June 4-5, 2004, a large gathering of underage high school students took place on a property controlled by Edward and Julie Niesen.
- The Niesens were allegedly aware that minors at the gathering were consuming alcoholic beverages.
- The Niesens did not provide or furnish any of the alcohol consumed by the underage guests.
- Beth Carr, an underage guest, consumed alcohol at the party on the Niesens' property.
- The alcohol consumed by Carr was provided by Michael Shumate, who was not present at the Niesens' property.
- After leaving the gathering, Carr drove a motor vehicle while intoxicated and crossed the highway's center line.
- Carr's vehicle collided with a vehicle occupied by the Nichols family, causing them severe personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The Nichols family filed a complaint against the Niesens and their insurer in the Circuit Court for Columbia County (trial court), alleging common-law negligence.
- The Niesens filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The Circuit Court granted the Niesens' motion to dismiss.
- The Nichols (as appellants) appealed the dismissal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's dismissal, holding that the Nichols' common-law negligence claim against the Niesens (as appellees) could proceed.
- The Niesens and their insurer (as petitioners) petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for review.
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 negligence claim exist against social hosts who, while not providing any alcohol, knowingly permit underage persons to consume alcohol on their property, when one of those underage persons later causes an injury-producing car accident?
Opinions:
Majority - N. Patrick Crooks, J.
No. A claim for common-law negligence cannot be maintained against social hosts who were aware that minors on their property were consuming alcohol, but who did not provide the alcohol, when an underage guest later caused an alcohol-related car accident. Even assuming the elements of negligence were met, liability is precluded by public policy. The most significant public policy factor is that allowing recovery would have 'no sensible or just stopping point,' potentially expanding liability uncontrollably. Liability for injuries caused by an intoxicated minor has historically been premised on affirmative acts like procuring or furnishing alcohol, not passive knowledge. Expanding liability in this manner is a policy decision best left to the legislature, not the judiciary.
Concurring - Shirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.
No. The claim for common-law negligence cannot be maintained, but the decision should rest on legislative policy expressed in statutes, not on judicial public policy grounds. Wisconsin Statute § 125.07(l)(a)4 prohibits an adult from intentionally encouraging or contributing to underage drinking. Since the complaint only alleges negligence (carelessness) and not that the Niesens intentionally encouraged the drinking, the statute itself provides the 'sensible and just stopping point' for liability under these circumstances. This approach respects the policy choices already made by the legislature in this area.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of social host liability in Wisconsin, drawing a bright line between active provision of alcohol and passive acquiescence to its consumption by minors. It reinforces the Wisconsin judiciary's practice of using public policy factors to limit negligence liability, even where a duty of care might arguably exist. By deferring to the legislature to expand liability, the court signals judicial restraint and effectively creates a safe harbor for property owners who do not affirmatively facilitate underage drinking, thereby limiting the potential for what it viewed as limitless and unpredictable lawsuits.
Unlock the full brief for Nichols v. Progressive Northern Insurance