High court rules hosts not liable if guests drive drunk

Canadians are not responsible for making sure their house guests don't drive away drunk, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday.

The top court ruled Zoe Childs cannot sue the people who let a known drunk drive away from their party in Ottawa on Jan. 1, 1999.

Childs was left paralyzed when Desmond Desormeaux slammed his car into the one she was riding in, killing herboyfriend, Derek Dupre.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against her suit for damages.

Driver had previous convictions

Desormeauxwas a self-confessed alcoholic with two previous impaired-driving convictions. When he was tested three hours after the accident, he had more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system.

He was jailed in 2000 for 10 years in what was thought to be the country's longest sentence for impaired driving causing death.

After the criminal case was completed, Childs filed a $6-million civil suit seeking damages against Desormeaux as well as Dwight Courrier and Julie Zimmerman, the hosts of the New Year's Eve party.

The high court ruling upheld two lower court rulings that had also rejected the liability claim.

"I conclude that as a general rule, a social host does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by a guest who has consumed alcohol," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote in Friday's ruling.

Hosts' reaction 'bittersweet'

"This has been a long, difficult matter," Eric Williams, a lawyer representing the party's hosts, told CBC News.

Williams said his clients had mixed feelings about the ruling.

"It's a bittersweet one. They would never have wanted this to happen. The trial judge found that they did not know this man was intoxicated when he left."

The court said that when it comes to monitoring a person's drinking, hosts of home parties are not bound by the same rules as commercial establishments, such as bars and restaurants.

"While, in the commercial context, it is reasonable to expect that the provider will act to protect the public interest, the same cannot be said of the social host," the decision stated.

It went on to note that a social host "neither undertakes nor is expected to monitor the conduct of guests on behalf of the public."

Childs 'disappointed'

Barry Laushway, Childs's lawyer, told CBC News his client is proud of her efforts but "she is disappointed that the Supreme Court did not see fit to agree with her."

He noted that, whatever the ruling, the accident's impact on his client remains profound. Childs was 18 when it happened and "she's in a wheelchair for the rest of her life."

Laushway had argued that the crash was predictable, and the hosts should have seen it coming because they knew Desormeaux was unfit to drive.

Court 'did the right thing': Insurance bureau

A lawyer who represented the Insurance Bureau of Canada at the high-court hearing said he was satisfied with the decision.

"The court did the right thing," Alan D'Silva told CBC News, adding that "the court has essentially closed the door to these kinds of claims.

"... It affirmed what we had said, that it was not appropriate to extend the duty to social hosts that exists in a commercial host context."

The insurance bureau had predicted a spike in both lawsuits and insurance premiums if the Supreme Court ruled in Childs's favour.