EVERYDAY LAW – Liable for liquor

LAST WEEK I commenced discussion on the issue of commercial hosts liability with respect to the sale of alcohol.
What should be borne in mind is that I have started by considering the legal position in Canada where the jurisprudence with respect to this matter is perhaps, most developed.
In last week’s article I discussed a case in which the host was held not to be liable. Today I will focus on another decision of the Canadian Supreme Court where the result was the reverse.  
I refer to the case of JORDAN HOUSE LTD. v MENOW (1974) in which the facts as outlined by the court were as follows:
The plaintiff, M, a frequent and well-known patron of the defendant’s hotel’s beverage room, became intoxicated there after having been served with beer from time to time during the course of a late afternoon and evening.
 At about 10 p.m. M was ejected from the hotel by the employees thereof, the owner operator then knowing that M was unable to take care of himself by reason of intoxication and that he would have to go home, probably by foot, by way of a main highway on which the hotel was fronted.
Ensuing harm
Within half of an hour after M was ejected from the hotel, and while he was walking near the centre line of the highway, he was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant H and as a result sustained serious injuries.  
On the basis of the concurrent findings of fact by the trial judge and by the Court of Appeal, M was awarded damages against the defendant hotel and against the defendant H under an equal apportionment of fault among all three parties.  The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court held the hotel was in an invitor-invitee relationship with M as one of its patrons.  
Given that relationship, the hotel operator’s knowledge of M’s propensity to drink and his instruction to his employees not to serve him unless he was accompanied by a responsible person, the fact that M was served not only in breach of statutory injunctions against serving a patron who was apparently in an intoxicated condition, and the fact that the hotel operator was aware that M was intoxicated, the proper conclusion was that the hotel came under a duty to M to see that he got home safely by taking him under its charge or putting him under the charge of a responsible patron, or to see that he was not turned out alone until he was in a reasonably fit condition to look after himself.
There was a breach of this duty for which the hotel must respond according to the degree of fault found against it.
 The harm that ensued was that which was reasonably foreseeable by reason of what the hotel did (in turning M out) and failed to do (in not taking preventive measures).
The above case marked the beginning of the expansion of liquor host liability in Canada.   It placed a duty on commercial hosts to ensure that their intoxicated patrons are able to make it home safely.
 Since the decision in Jordan House Ltd. v Menow, the Canadian Supreme Court has re-affirmed on more than one occasion the duty of a commercial host to patrons who are consuming alcohol.  
The cases demonstrate that the host owes a duty of care to all third parties who may reasonably be expected to come into contact with the intoxicated patron and be harmed by his actions.
One question that may reasonably be asked is to what extent the law should in fact place responsibility on the adult who is consuming alcohol.  
In next week’s article I will focus on the approach that the English Courts have taken with respect to the issue of liquor hosts liability.