Ulwick v. DeChristopher
411 Mass. 401, 582 N.E.2d 954, 1991 Mass. LEXIS 582 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A social host is generally not liable in tort for injuries caused to a third person by an intoxicated guest if the host neither served nor provided liquor to the guest, as common law duty in such cases typically hinges on the host's control over the liquor supply.
Facts:
- In the early evening of September 26, 1986, Jeffrey Salvatore and two friends, all under twenty-one, drank vodka at a friend's home and purchased another bottle through a passerby.
- Salvatore and his friends then drove to a BYOB party at the home of Matthew DeChristopher, who was eighteen, whose parents were out of town.
- At least forty to fifty people attended the party, many of them underage, and guests drank, played drinking games, and consumed alcohol they brought, using DeChristopher's refrigerator for beer and his ice and juice for mixers.
- Salvatore brought his own vodka, mixed it with juice in the kitchen, and drank at least one glass while at the party, consuming only alcohol he or his companions brought.
- DeChristopher circulated with a beer, socialized with guests including Salvatore, and observed Salvatore to be visibly intoxicated and unsteady on his feet.
- DeChristopher did not tell Salvatore to stop drinking or comment on his ability to drive.
- Salvatore left the party after about an hour and a half, drove at over sixty miles per hour, crossed the center line, and collided with the plaintiff, an on-duty police officer operating a motorcycle, causing severe and permanent physical injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Matthew DeChristopher and other defendants (Jeffrey Salvatore and Emily Gulla) in the Superior Court.
- The defendant, Matthew DeChristopher, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no legal liability.
- A judge of the Superior Court granted the defendant DeChristopher's motion for summary judgment.
- A separate judgment was entered in DeChristopher's favor pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 54(b), allowing immediate appeal of the summary judgment.
- The plaintiff appealed the Superior Court's judgment.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case to itself on its own motion.
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 common law duty of care to third parties injured by an intoxicated guest's negligent driving when the host did not serve or provide alcohol to the guest, even if the host knew the guest was intoxicated and allowed them to continue drinking their own alcohol on the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Greaney, J.
No, a social host does not owe a common law duty of care to third parties injured by an intoxicated guest's negligent driving when the host did not serve or provide alcohol to the guest. The court reaffirmed its stance from McGuiggan v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., which established social host liability only where the host knew or should have known a guest was drunk and then 'gave him or permitted him to take an alcoholic drink.' The court clarified that 'permitted him to take' applies solely to situations where the host makes their own liquor available to an intoxicated guest. The critical factor for imposing a duty of care on a social host is control over the liquor supply, which allows the host to regulate consumption, similar to a bartender. Without such control, requiring a host to supervise guests drinking their own alcohol presents practical difficulties, potentially leading to physical altercations or forcing intoxicated individuals onto the road. The court also rejected the plaintiff's arguments for liability based on negligent encouragement or statutory violations, stating that statutory violations creating criminal penalties do not, by themselves, establish a common law breach of duty or an independent ground for civil liability without an underlying common law duty.
Concurring - Lynch, J.
Yes, the court's judgment is correct in affirming no liability for the social host, but I write separately to express disagreement with the majority's suggestion that social hosts can effectively deter guests from becoming intoxicated in the same way a bartender can 'shut off' a patron. It is often impractical and socially awkward for a host to intervene with guests, especially family members or those with imposing personalities, regarding their drinking. Social settings naturally impose constraints on extreme behavior, and if these fail, there is little a civilized host can do other than controlling the guest list, making the analogy to commercial establishments in this context unrealistic.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of social host liability in Massachusetts by strongly emphasizing the 'control over the liquor supply' as the indispensable element for imposing a common law duty of care. It distinguishes between a host who provides alcohol and one who merely provides a venue for guests to consume their own. The decision reinforces that statutory violations, while potentially leading to criminal penalties, do not automatically create a civil cause of action without an existing common law duty. This ruling makes it more challenging for plaintiffs to successfully sue social hosts in 'BYOB' scenarios where the host did not directly furnish alcohol.
