Silva v. Markham
25 Mass. L. Rptr. 567 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A social host does not owe a duty of care to an adult guest who voluntarily consumes alcohol or drugs on the host's premises and suffers self-inflicted harm, particularly when the host neither supplied nor controlled the harmful substances, regardless of the host's awareness of the guest's intoxication or substance abuse issues.
Facts:
- On June 5, 2004, Dennis Markham gave his eighteen-year-old son, Conor Markham, permission to invite friends to the family's beach house for a graduation party, with instructions to maintain the property and manage noise, but Dennis did not attend or supply alcohol.
- Conor and his twenty-three-year-old sister, Courtney Markham, hosted the party, where guests, including nineteen-year-old Michael Silva, brought their own alcohol; Silva arrived with a thirty-pack of beer, having already consumed alcohol.
- Conor knew Silva to be a heavy drinker, Courtney had previously seen Silva crash a vehicle while intoxicated, and Dennis knew Silva had substance abuse issues and had been asked to leave a prior residence due to these issues.
- During the party, Silva consumed alcohol and ingested Oxycontin he had brought himself, while Conor announced that guests were permitted to spend the night.
- Silva fell asleep on a couch and was later moved to the floor by unknown guests; Conor and Courtney observed Silva sleeping, but were not concerned as he frequently 'passed out' at parties.
- Around 2:30 a.m., police responded to noise complaints but left after a guest incorrectly stated no underage drinking was occurring.
- Conor learned about Silva's Oxycontin ingestion only after Silva had passed out.
- At 10:30 a.m. the following morning, guests found Silva not breathing, and he subsequently died from an overdose of Oxycontin and alcohol.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Silva, as Administratrix of Michael Silva's Estate, filed a wrongful death action against Conor Markham, Courtney Markham, and Dennis Markham in the Massachusetts Superior Court.
- The Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court, Judge Kane, held a hearing on April 29, 2008, and subsequently allowed the Administratrix's motion for a continuance under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(f) for additional discovery.
- After additional discovery, the parties submitted supplemental memoranda and waived further oral argument.
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 legal duty of care to an adult guest who voluntarily consumes alcohol and drugs on the host's premises, where the host neither supplied nor controlled the substances, even if the host was aware of the guest's prior substance abuse issues and observed the guest's intoxication?
Opinions:
Majority - Nickerson, Gary A., J.
No, a social host does not owe a legal duty of care to an adult guest who voluntarily consumes alcohol and drugs on the host's premises when the host neither supplied nor controlled the substances, even if the host was aware of the guest's prior substance abuse issues and observed the guest's intoxication. The court held that the Defendants, as social hosts, owed no duty of care to Michael Silva. The court reiterated that social host liability under common law negligence is limited to circumstances where the host 'served or provided liquor to an intoxicated guest,' emphasizing that such liability 'proceeds from the duty of care that accompanies control of the liquor supply.' Since it was undisputed that Dennis, Conor, and Courtney neither supplied nor made alcohol or Oxycontin available to Silva, they had no duty as social hosts. The court applied Langemann v. Davis to Dennis, finding no social host liability for a parent-defendant who neither served nor made alcohol available, even with knowledge of potential consumption. For Conor and Courtney, the court relied on Ulwick v. DeChristopher, rejecting liability for a host who merely provided premises where guests brought and consumed their own alcohol and tolerated excessive drinking. Furthermore, the court asserted that no duty was owed because Silva, at nineteen, was an adult responsible for his own conduct, who voluntarily consumed the substances. Citing Hamilton v. Ganias and Manning v. Nobile, the court affirmed that a social host has no duty to an adult guest who becomes intoxicated by voluntary consumption and subsequently injures himself. The court rejected the Administratrix's arguments for a 'special relationship' or 'voluntarily assumed duty of care,' distinguishing Krueger v. Fraternity of Phi Gamma Delta, Inc. due to the absence of coercion or pressure in Silva's case. Regarding a voluntarily assumed duty, the court found no evidence that the Defendants directly undertook a specific duty to monitor or protect Silva, and allowing guests to stay overnight did not trigger such a broad duty. The court concluded that finding a duty on these alternative grounds would effectively contravene the established precedents of Hamilton and Manning, which emphasize the intoxicated adult guest's responsibility for their self-inflicted harm.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the narrow scope of social host liability in Massachusetts, particularly when an adult guest voluntarily consumes substances not supplied by the host. It underscores the principle that an adult's voluntary intoxication generally forecloses any duty owed by a social host for self-inflicted harm. The court's firm rejection of 'special relationship' and 'voluntarily assumed duty' arguments, when they would effectively bypass established precedents, indicates a strong judicial policy favoring individual responsibility for adult guests in these situations. This ruling provides clarity for future cases by limiting social host liability to scenarios where the host directly controls the provision of alcohol or drugs and to third-party injuries rather than self-inflicted harm.
