The SCOC finally issues a ruling that comes from

[Hicksey]

EDITORIAL: A sober ruling from the court

Canada's Supreme Court ruled yesterday that people who serve alcohol at house parties aren't responsible for what drunken guests do after they leave.

The unanimous decision was a sound one. It put to rest fears that anyone throwing such a party would be put to the same "duty of care" test as bars and restaurants are, the result of a 1995 Supreme Court decision. In that year, the court ruled businesses serving alcohol could be held responsible for the damage their drunken patrons cause after leaving the premises.

But in this case, the court upheld two lower court rulings rejecting a claim by Zoe Childs. She was left a paraplegic after being struck by Desmond Desormeaux on Jan. 1, 1999 near Ottawa.

Am I the only one that thinks this was the right ruling?

[geoffrey]

You put the keys in the ignition, you alone are responsible.

If I have a house party, being a crazy university student, and someone I don't even know or didn't invite drove home drunk, I would have be liable under the previous law. For this reason, I don't have parties at my house.

This is a good step for making people accountable for their actions. No more 'oh it wasn't my fault, someone served me the alcohol.'

[scribblet]

It was the right decision IMHO, sad that the lady was not able to get compensation from the driver as he had no insurance. But as quoted from www.smalldeadanimals.com

"One feels sympathy for any victim, especially those like Zoe Childs, who was paralyzed as a result of the accident. However, transferring the responsibility for that crime to a third party for the explicit purpose of expanding the damages pool is not justice - it's civil predation."

[PocketRocket]

I agree that a 3rd party cannot (or should not) be held responsible for a person's actions.

I have seen occasions where a bar owner calls a cab for one of his patrons, who then simply gets in the cab (as he's being watched by bar staff), pulls out of the parking lot, turn around, and come right back to the same parking lot where he gets out of the cab, and into his car, then drives away, unnoticed by the staff who think they have seen him off safely home.

In a case such as the one cited in the thread opener, the guy who was at fault, and had no insurance, should be made to make large payments, not unlike child-support payments, for the rest of his life.

Forced labour, if need be, to make sure he continues with these payments.

This was a case of double stupidity. First, driving drunk. Second, without insurance.

Both of these prove that he had no care whatsoever for the welfare of those he might endanger.

Make the bugger pay in a big way for the rest of his life. :angry: