Should Hosts Be Liable for Serving Liquor to Guests Who Cause Accidents While Driving under the Influence?--And Other Issues of Third-Party Liability--Posner

Some 40 percent of the roughly 40,000 fatal traffic accidents a year in the United States involve a drunk driver, but this figure is down from almost 60 percent 25 years ago, although the number of fatalities has not declined (unsurprisingly, since there are more drivers). I do not know what contribution if any "social host liability" has made to the decline. The term refers to laws (statutes or, less commonly, common-law--that is, judge-made--doctrines), now in force in a majority of states, that make an employer, a bar or restaurant or liquor store, or a purely social host, liable in tort for a guest's (employee's, customer's, etc.) injuring someone while driving under the influence of alcohol (or it might be drugs), if the host knew or should have known that the guest was drunk and would drive, yet served or continued serving him liquor. Actually, the liability of commercial establishments that sell liquor to obviously drunk patrons is nothing new; it has long been imposed by state "dram shop" laws. The extension to other hosts is novel. Social host liability raises the interesting general question of when someone who has not inflicted an injury should be punished for having failed to prevent it. In general, such liability is not imposed. For example, it is not a tort to fail to rescue a stranger in distress even if you could do so without incurring any danger, or other significant cost, to yourself. I am not my brother's keeper. Or, as the courts say, there is no "good Samaritan" duty enforced by the law (it is different of course if one has agreed by contract to undertake a duty of rescue). One reason not to impose such liability is that it might induce potential rescuers to steer clear of any situation in which they might be punished for failing to attempt a rescue; so strong swimmers might avoid beaches at which poor swimmers congregate. In addition, adjudicating cases of third-party liability for failing to prevent an injury would often be plagued by uncertainty--who was actually in a position to attempt a rescue, what would the risk to him (or to them) have been, and how likely is it that the attempt if made would have succeeded? These do not seem serious problems with regard to social host liability, even when the host is an individual rather than a bar. Of course, there may be tricky questions regarding whether the host should have known that the guest was drunk and would drive, but these are not much more difficult than other factual questions in tort cases. Still, it might seem superfluous to impose liability on a third party when there is a clearly liable second party (as often there will not be in a rescue case)--the drunk driver. (The victim is the first party.) If he is punished whether civilly or criminally (or both) should he cause an injury because of his drinking, why should a third party be liable too? It is only a partial answer that the injurer may be judgment proof (even if he carries liability insurance, as he may be required by law to do, his insurance may not cover the full extent of the harm that he causes), because criminal law enables severe punishment to be inflicted on judgment-proof wrongdoers. It is true that criminal punishment does not compensate the wrongdoer's victim, but people can protect themselves by first-party insurance from the financial consequences of being injured in a traffic accident. The focus of policy should be on deterrence and other means of prevention. A possible explanation for social host liability is that the combination of tort and criminal sanctions for dangerous behavior is not thought an adequate deterrent. More than a million drivers are arrested every year for driving under the influence, and there are those 16,000 or so annual deaths in accidents involving a driver who is driving under the influence. These figures in themselves do not prove anything, because it is necessary to weigh any benefits of an activity that causes potential harms, even potential fatalities, against those costs. But there is skepticism that people who drink so heavily and uncontrollably as to become a menace to other drivers and court arrest and prosecution for drunk driving are making utility-maximizing judgments. Suppose we think they are more like children than competent adults, and agree that parents should be liable for their children's vandalism if knowing their children's propensity to vandalize they fail to take reasonable steps to control them. Then there would be a strong argument for social host liability, provided the costs are not excessive. It would be akin to accomplice liability for selling a gun to a person who one had reason to think would use it to commit a crime. One would not want in a case such as that to rely on the existence of heavy criminal penalties to deter the buyer from using the gun to commit a crime. Another way to think about social host liability is to imagine that an off-duty policeman is at a bar and sees an obviously drunk person leave and get it into a car and start to drive off. The policeman could arrest him. In effect, social host liability makes bars and other hosts a kind of auxiliary police force, though conscripted, rather than hired, to prevent criminal activity. Third-party liability is so common that it is hard to believe it has no economizing features. The doctrine of respondeat superior, which makes an employer liable for the torts committed by his employees in the course of their employment for him, is the most common example. It is more extreme than social host liability, because it does not depend on the employer's knowing or having reason to know that the employee was careless or irresponsible. The economic rationale is that we want the employer not only to be careful in selecting, training, and monitoring his employees, but also to consider substituting capital for labor inputs and making other adjustments that might reduce the incidence of employee torts; in other words, we want him to consider making changes in activity (his use of inputs, perhaps the scale of his production) and not just changes in his care. All these are examples of collective punishment, a term that simply means threatening to punish those who fail to prevent a harm that cannot be as efficiently prevented directly. It is a question of fact rather than (I think) of principle whether in particular circumstances collective punishment is an efficient method of minimizing harm.

Comments

[Noah]

I'm for a moral duty to help one's friend who is headed for their car while inebriated, but I am uncomfortable with making the bartender the cop. for one, it's a conflict for them. if the bartender wants tips, they keep serving. asking them to weigh the probability that the customer is beyond the legal limit and will then go get in their car and drive against their economic interests hardly seems practical, especially in a bar with any kind of crowd, noise, or activity.

we've put the burden of ascertaining proper age on the bar and its employees and that's enough. i worry about dramshop liability becoming pizza liability (you shouldn't have sold me that XL extra-cheese that was my last meal before my heart-attack) or candy liability (where i can sue hershey's for my dental bills because they should have first determined whether i was taking the appropriate precautions to protect my teeth).

[Jack]

Noah, conflicting goals exist in nearly all businesses. Contractors may like to slap a project together and make a lot of "tips" but the owner and building inspectors help to keep them honest as does a quest for a good company reputation.

But what has happened here that the bartender chasing tips and the bar prospering at great cost to its customers and the community? Has the dollar become your god?

While the rest of your argument is absurdum, you may be pleased to note NYC having banned transfats in all of its restaurants which, since its such a large market is likely to change the menus of chains and franchises for the entire nation. There's quite a good discussion of the transfat decision here.

[neilehat]

Before the courts or any else takes action expanding the realm of liability for tort, perhaps we ought to all become fully versed in the concept of causation in the Law. To wit, I think we all would benefit from a thorough reading of Hart's & Honore's work on "Causation in the Law", Oxford University Press.

Clarifying the concept of causation is the first step. At what level of causation is liability to cease? Adequate, Proximate, etc., etc? Or as I prefer, "Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, Quartenary"...; "ahh to heck with it all"! Let's hold everybody and evrything liable and spend the rest of our lives in Court. Wasn't it Dickens or somebody like that, who set up the legal nightmare of "Jardash v. Jardash" or was it "Jardine v. Jardine" or something like that?

[Anonymous]

nice
مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

thanks
بنت الزلفي

[Anonymous]

شات سعودي

[Anonymous]

I have just found your website great.
I am from Macedonia and also am speaking English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Today; toronto sun cover brings back fond memories of the police academy series of movies that started in and ended in with today; headline heck no; he won't go."

Regards :P Darshan.

[Anonymous]

العاب
___
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

[Anonymous]

شات صوتي

[Anonymous]

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

[Anonymous]

Khbsku

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

[Anonymous]

Incredible site!

[Anonymous]

Incredible site!

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

thanks to tell me that,i think thats so usefully----
tiffanys
links of london

[Anonymous]

a great post,thanks for shareing-----
ed hardy
tiffany uk

[Anonymous]

دردشة برق

دردشة الخليج

[Anonymous]

Beautiful site!

[Anonymous]

It is the coolest site, keep so!

[Anonymous]

Beautiful site!

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

[Anonymous]

ICaBdL Beautiful site!

[Anonymous]

Good morning. I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it.
I am from Burkina and also now'm speaking English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Huge bedrooms all with ensuites a sumptuous master suite."

With respect :-(, batman dark knight window Coverings.

[Anonymous]

This is my first time visiting this site and I found it very informational as a whole. I am so delighted in finding your website!.
I am from Malta and also now'm speaking English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "You would find these in various thermal powe."

Thank you very much :-). Kohler bathroom accessories.