Social host theory doesn’t apply to absent homeowner

Listen to this article

A Superior Court judge has found that a homeowner who was out of state when her 26-year-old daughter hosted a “bring your own beer” party at their Billerica residence could not be held liable under a negligence or social host theory.

The plaintiff guest, who was injured in an assault by an intoxicated partygoer, argued that the mother’s act of leaving behind a bottle of vodka that may have been consumed prior to the incident should subject her to civil liability.

But Judge Gary V. Inge disagreed, noting that social host laws in Massachusetts require a plaintiff to prove that a defendant homeowner either supplied the alcohol or made it accessible to guests.

“That [the mother] knew her daughter was having friends over and that there would be alcohol involved did not create a duty of care to protect the guests from harm caused by a third party,” the judge wrote. “As a matter of law, [the mother] had no duty to supervise her daughter who at the time of the party was herself an adult.”

However, Inge denied the daughter’s summary judgment request on grounds that genuine issues of material fact existed, which must be resolved by a fact-finder.

“[T]o incur social host liability, a person must serve or make available alcohol to her guests so that she exercises an element of control over the alcohol,” he said. “There is evidence in the record that not all guests were told that the party was ‘BYOB,’ and that guests, including [the plaintiff], were getting beers out of the refrigerator and taking shots of vodka.”

The eight-page decision is Ryan v. Jones, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 12-250-11. The full text of the ruling can be ordered by clicking here.

Party started

Todd D. Beauregard, who represented the plaintiff, said the judge allowed the suit against the daughter to move forward even though the evidence demonstrated that some guests brought their own alcohol to the party.

“This decision certainly pushes the envelope on social host liability,” he said. “Until now, the majority of the cases out there indicated that the host actually had to purchase the alcohol and then make it available to guests. But what the judge held here is that the buying of the booze is really not the critical question.”

Instead, Beauregard said, the judge focused on how the alcohol was actually controlled inside the house once the party started.

The Lowell attorney said he expects plaintiffs’ counsel to cite Inge’s ruling when they try to defeat defense arguments that a homeowner must actually supply or serve alcohol in order to be found liable.

“If you call it a BYOB party but still provide some of the alcohol and let people get so intoxicated that there is an assault, the message from the judge is that you’re still going to be held responsible,” he said. “Some judges get really hung up on who purchased the booze, but this says that isn’t necessarily the biggest factor, because if you can establish that a homeowner put the alcohol in the refrigerator and had other booze mixed in, that can be enough to get a case to a jury.”

Although the mother was aware a party was being held at her home, Beauregard said he could not prove the mother knew her daughter had consumed her alcohol in the past.

“If I had more in the mother’s deposition to show that she left the vodka in the house and was aware her daughter had drank it on prior occasions, I might’ve had a better shot of keeping her in the case,” he said. “That seemed to be what the judge was looking for, because he asked me several times at the hearing what kind of control the mother had over the alcohol once she left for Maine.”

Defense counsel Lindsay M. Jordan of Cummings, King & MacDonald in Newton countered that if a parent could be liable under such a fact pattern, the number of people who could be named as defendants in social host suits would skyrocket.

“The court really looked at the social host law and stated that the question comes down to much more than just being a homeowner who happens to leave alcohol in the house when they go out of town,” she said. “Just because you left some alcohol behind, or knew your kids were having people over, doesn’t mean you’re legally responsible.”

Jordan, who handled the case with Bradley A. MacDonald, said that even if the daughter were a minor, there would be no liability under existing caselaw. The mere fact that someone put beer in a refrigerator does not allow for a finding that a homeowner controlled or supplied it, she said.

“From the perspective of a parent who isn’t even in the home but may have left alcohol in the house, which we still maintain did not happen, the value of a decision like this is that the judge definitively found that’s not enough,” Jordan said “The caselaw in Massachusetts says you can’t be liable as a social host for merely providing a party atmosphere.”

Bad mix

Defendant Ann Lindmark and her co-defendant daughter, Kerri Lindmark, lived together in Billerica. On July 6, 2007, the daughter invited friends to the house for a party. Her mother was at her vacation home in Maine at the time.

Before she departed, the mother took with her some bottles of wine but left behind a bottle of vodka. The daughter purchased either a six- or 12-pack of beer and told her guests, including co-defendant Kathleen Jones, to bring their own alcohol.

On the night of the party, plaintiff William Ryan was drinking at another house when his friend received a call inviting him to the Lindmark house. The daughter agreed the plaintiff could come to the party.

When he arrived, the plaintiff saw guests in the kitchen drinking beer and vodka.

He also noticed that some of the partygoers were adding substances to their drinks. Included was Jones, whom the plaintiff saw take three shots of Klonopin-enhanced vodka.

At some point, the daughter, who had retired earlier in the night, was awakened by noise and went to the kitchen. Another guest recalled seeing her after midnight in an intoxicated state.

For reasons the judge said were not clear to him, Jones became upset with the plaintiff later in the evening for a remark he made to one of the other women at the party.

During the argument, Jones struck the plaintiff in his left eye with a beer bottle.

When the plaintiff tried to leave, he was again hit in the mouth. He went on to have eye surgery at the Lahey Clinic.

After filing a complaint in Middlesex Superior Court in 2010, both the mother and daughter moved for summary judgment.

Host of problems

In finding for the mother, Inge wrote that she did not host the event. The evidence developed during discovery also failed to establish that she had purchased or served any of the alcohol consumed by her daughter’s guests, the judge said.

“For a social host to be held liable for harm caused by a third party, there must be some type of control over the alcohol giving rise to a duty on the host’s behalf,” he wrote. “[The mother] had no such control over the alcohol that her adult daughter’s friends drank, and for this reason, she cannot be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries under a theory of social host liability.”

On the plaintiff’s negligence claim, the judge found that the mother did not breach the duty of reasonable care owed to guests in her home.

Inge said no court, under such a theory, had ever imposed liability on parents for injuries stemming from a party hosted by their children, even under circumstances in which they knew alcohol would be served.

However, the evidence was sufficient against the daughter to survive summary judgment, Inge said.

“As distinguished from [the mother], [the daughter] was the host and, it could be found, the supplier at least of some amount of the alcohol that was being consumed,” he said. “Accordingly a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial.”

For more information about the judge mentioned in this story, visit the
Judge Center at www.judgecenter.com.

CASE: Ryan v. Jones, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 12-250-11

COURT: Superior Court

ISSUE: Should a parent who was out of state when her 26-year-old daughter hosted a BYOB party at their home be held liable under a negligence or social host theory?

DECISION: No