After driving from the party the impaired driver veered into the wrong lane on a south Ottawa road and crashed into the vehicle in which Zoe Childs was a passenger, injuring her and two other passengers; a fourth passenger was killed. The impaired driver’s blood alcohol level was reported as three times the legal limit.

 

The impaired driver was uninsured and had no assets. His friends, the two party hosts, may have other sources of insurance. Zoe Child’s spine was severed and she is claiming a lifetime loss of income, and a large amount for the future care (full time nurses, special accomodation, and so on).

 

In the lower courts, the Zoe Child’s lawyer argued that the hosts of the party should be partly responsible for Zoe Child’s catastrophic injuries. He argued that the hosts should have prevented the impaired driver from driving. The lower courts disagreed that the hosts could have or should have taken on this role.

 

Zoe Child’s lawyer has been quoted as predicting that if Childs wins at the Supreme Court of Canada, the social behaviour of Canadians across the country will be affected. “A host would have to take some reasonable precaution, or some reasonable steps, to prevent a seriously intoxicated person from leaving and killing people, or putting them in a wheelchair.”

 

The argument made on behalf of Zoe Childs is an attempt at extension of the established doctrine of “commercial host liability”. This doctrine basically states that commercial drinking establishments cannot just ply people with liquor and carelessly discharge them into the street to do damage. If efforts to control a drunken customer fail, the bar is presumably obliged to call the police. The law imposes these obligations on businesses because they are profiting from serving alcohol, and the consequences of drunken behaviour are not hard to predict.

 

In this regard, the British Columbia Supreme Court recently assessed 15% liability against each of two Whistler restaurant/pubs for injuries sustained by one of their patrons while enroute to a party in Pemberton, although he had apparently already returned home from the restaurants before heading out again. What about the individual’s responsibility for his own safety? Well, there are no perfect answers.

 

The law has always tried to balance individual interests and social concerns for the prevention of injury and crime. When people are hurt due to the irresponsible behaviour of others, the courts will review and sometimes extend the law to provide a remedy. As regards the tragic Zoe Childs, she has one last chance to argue that the party hosts are responsible. Could go either way.