Wakulich v. Mraz
751 N.E.2d 1 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Although a social host is not liable for providing alcohol to a guest, a host who voluntarily undertakes to care for an incapacitated guest assumes a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in that undertaking and can be held liable for negligence.
Facts:
- Elizabeth Wakulich, aged 16, was at the home of Dennis Mraz and his sons, Michael (21) and Brian (18).
- Michael and Brian Mraz offered Elizabeth money and used social pressure to induce her to drink an entire quart of Goldschlager.
- After consuming the alcohol in the early morning hours, Elizabeth lost consciousness.
- Michael and Brian moved the unconscious Elizabeth to a downstairs family room, where they observed her vomiting profusely and making 'gurgling' sounds.
- The brothers later checked on her, removed her vomit-saturated blouse, and placed a pillow under her head to prevent aspiration.
- Michael and Brian prevented others present in the home from calling 911 or seeking other medical intervention for Elizabeth.
- Later that morning, Dennis Mraz ordered his sons to remove Elizabeth from the home; they then took her to a friend's home.
- Elizabeth was subsequently taken to a hospital where she was pronounced dead.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Louise Wakulich, as special administratrix of her daughter's estate, sued Dennis, Michael, and Brian Mraz in an Illinois trial court.
- The plaintiff filed an amended second amended complaint alleging negligence under the Wrongful Death Act and the Survival Act.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, arguing Illinois law does not recognize social host liability.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District. The defendants are the appellees.
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 voluntarily undertakes to care for an intoxicated and unconscious minor guest assume a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in that undertaking, separate from any liability for providing alcohol?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McBride
Yes. A social host who voluntarily undertakes to care for an incapacitated guest assumes a legal duty to exercise reasonable care, and liability for breaching this duty is distinct from the precluded social host liability for furnishing alcohol. The court first affirmed that Illinois law, as established in Charles v. Seigfried, does not recognize a common law cause of action for social host liability because the legislature has preempted the entire field of alcohol-related liability with the Dramshop Act. However, the court distinguished the plaintiff's claim based on a voluntary undertaking. The duty at issue did not arise from the defendants' status as social hosts who provided alcohol, but rather from their affirmative actions to care for Elizabeth after she became unconscious. Citing established tort principles, the court explained that one who voluntarily undertakes to render services to another is liable for harm caused by the negligent performance of those services. The defendants' actions—moving Elizabeth, placing a pillow under her head, and checking on her—constituted a voluntary assumption of a duty to care for her. Therefore, their alleged negligence in performing that undertaking, including preventing others from seeking medical aid, stated a valid cause of action that was not barred by the rule against social host liability.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction in Illinois tort law between non-liable conduct (providing alcohol as a social host) and potentially liable conduct (negligently undertaking care for an incapacitated guest). It clarifies that the broad preemption of alcohol-related liability by the Dramshop Act does not immunize a host from all forms of negligence. The decision provides a pathway for plaintiffs to hold social hosts accountable for their actions taken after a guest becomes intoxicated and is in peril. Consequently, it signals to social hosts that while they may not be liable for serving alcohol, choosing to intervene in a medical emergency creates a duty to act with reasonable care, which often necessitates seeking professional medical help rather than attempting inadequate measures.
Unlock the full brief for Wakulich v. Mraz