|
''Childs v Desormeaux'', is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of social host liability. The Court held that a social host does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by a guest who has consumed alcohol. ==Background== Julie Zimmerman and Dwight Courrier hosted a New Year's pot-luck dinner to which guests were to bring their own alcohol. Desmond Desormeaux, a guest at the party and long-time heavy drinker, drank approximately 12 beers in over 2 and a half hours that evening. According to the version of events accepted by both sides, the hosts did not monitor his drinking more closely than the drinking of the other guests. Desormeaux drove home after a brief conversation with Courrier, who asked him, "Bro, are you going to be all right?". On the way home, he was involved in a car crash, paralyzing the passenger Zoë Childs and killing another passenger, Derek Dupre. Finding liability in this case would mean recognizing a new duty of care. To determine whether or not such a duty existed, all three levels of court used the standard test in Canadian law: the Anns two-stage test. This test was introduced in the United Kingdom in the case of ''Anns v. Merton London Borough Council'' () 2 All ER 492; it was adopted in Canada in ''City of Kamloops v. Nielsen'' (1984), 10 DLR (4th) 641. The two-stage test was also adopted by other common law jurisdictions, but has since been repudiated in the United Kingdom and every major common law jurisdiction except Canada. In Canada, the test has undergone several developments since ''Kamloops'', most notably in ''Cooper v. Hobart'', () 3 S.C.R. 537. The trial judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the injury to Childs was reasonably foreseeable, that is, a reasonable person in the position of Mr. Courrier and Ms. Zimmerman would have foreseen that Mr. Desormeaux might cause an accident and injure someone else—but refused to impose a duty of care based on public policy grounds ((2002), 217 D.L.R. (4th) 217). Like the trial court, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that Zimmerman and Courrier did not owe a duty of care to Childs, but for different reasons: the relationship between the hosts and the guest was not proximate enough to ground a duty of care. This was because, among other things, the hosts did not serve alcohol to Desormeaux and did not know he was intoxicated, they did not assume control over the service of alcohol, there was no statute imposing a duty to monitor drinking on social hosts, and the hosts did not otherwise assume responsibility for Desormeaux's safety. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Childs v Desormeaux」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|