Poll: Are Social Hosts Responsible for the Actions of Guests?
Following the ruling of the state's high court, Reading Patch wants to see what our readers think.
Photos
Residents of Massachusetts who host “bring-your-own-booze” parties can’t be held accountable if underage guests subsequently drive drunk and cause injuries, deaths or damage, the state’s highest court ruled earlier this week.
Stating that social hosts can’t be expected to police their guests’ drinking, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court ruled that only hosts who supply alcohol to guests can be held legally responsible for damage subsequently caused by intoxicated revelers, according to the State House News Service.
"[A] social host could be held liable for injury to third parties caused by the drunk driving of a guest only in cases where the host had actually served alcohol or made it available," wrote Justice Fernande Duffly in a majority opinion in which she drew from prior court rulings to offer a rationale. "[L]iability attaches only where a social host either serves alcohol or exercises effective control over the supply of alcohol."
Reading Patch wants to know what you think. Take our poll and let us know if you agree or disagree with the SJC’s ruling.
CommonSenseCitizen
2:25 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
First, trying to hold hosts responsible for their adult guests' potential abuse of alcohol is nothing more than an attempt to shift the responsibility. It encourages the "blame everyone else for my behavior" attitude that is taking over our culture. If I have alcoholic beverages available at a party for adults, I expect them to behave like adults. End of story. Any failure to do so is a reflection of their level of personal responsibility, not an indication that my selection of beverages needs to be called into question.
As for underage drinking: why is this caveat even in here? Anyone who serves underage individuals should be prosecuted. In more detail: if an individual is 18 or over (but not yet 21) and causes damage from driving while intoxicated, he or she is responsible. They are an adult in the eyes of the law. The individuals who served this person illegally should be charged separately for that crime. If the person driving drunk and causing death or damage is under 18, the parents as well as those who served the individual should be jointly accountable.
LeanstoRight
8:14 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
CommonSenseCitizen,
Agreed, though I think the legal responsibility/consequences for the parents of the under 18 person driving drunk should be tempered by the reality that unless they were at the party themselves they can't realistically control every single aspect of their child's like (especially if he/she is over 16 years of age), unless there was compelling evidence they knew there was a clear chance that alcohol could have fallen into the hand of underage persons at the event. Prosecuters, judges, and juries should be able to make such judgement calls, but I'd hate to see someone financially wiped out in the understandly effort to help a victim or family of a victim.
CommonSenseCitizen
10:33 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
LeansToRight:
Agreed. I expect juries and courts have the ability to apply common sense (clearly a passion of mine) to specific incidents and rule accordingly, so my statement was meant as a starting point. I think we're on the same page. I know I did stupid and foolish things that my parents could have been held accountable for regardless of my strict upbringing. I know as a 16 year old I was aware something was wrong but did it anyway half the time. Case by case. But I'd rather see personal responsibility be the default rather than opting to pin blame elsewhere.