California legal question

[tbb113]

I know there are some CA lawyers on the board...anybody know the answer?

I have a 20 year old son who has many friends that are over 21. They all like to hang out at the house and the friends frequently bring over beer and drink at the house. I do NOT provide the liquor (and frequently am even unaware that they are over as I am either at work or asleep). Would I be liable if any of them were involved in an accident on the way home?

So far this is purely theoretical. To my knowledge, no one has ever left feeling intoxicated but they could be over the legal limit without any of us realizing it.

[tbb113]

114 looks and no answers? Anybody have any idea (even based on a different state's laws)?

[Loremma]

I don't know the legalities of it but I would think you'd be responsible. Just like a bar that serves too many drinks.

(sorry to get all technical and use big words! )

[Peweh]

Not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV... but I think if they bring their own alcohol and you're not aware of it, you couldn't be at fault. Your son might be somehow, as a minor of your estate. Blazedog? Anyone?

[Laura]

Haven't practiced in this area of the law, but as a social host I would say generally no, unless you were providing alcohol to a minor or someone who is obviously intoxicated, but I am not sure about that. Look up dram shop laws and social hosts in CA on google. The thought is that if someone gets intoxicated at your home, gets in an accident and hurts a third party, the third party's recourse is against the drunk person. The logic behind this is that the drunk person should not be able to pass of their liability on to someone else.

[AzAnne]

Not living in CA, but I know that here in AZ the laws are pretty strict

Example:
DD was at a party when she was 17, owner were gone, ages ranged from 16 - 22. Cops showed up, everyone was breathalyzed, under 21 who blew positive were given tickets, owners of the house received a ticket with a large fine.

Neighbor was out of town, children invited other under 21's over, alcohol consumed, cops showed up, neighbors received fine.

Now if anyone of those drinking would have gotten in an accident, would the home owners been held responsible? Don't know, but I could see where parents of drinking kid would press issue. See first example... parents of kids who received ticket for underage drinking pursued having the fine paid by parents of child having the party . Never heard how that ended.

[Laurielee]

we have a very sad situation here coming to trial soon. There were some 16 year olds having a sleep over and I think they got the vodka from the parents cabinet while they were sleeping. One girl died of alcohol oisioning and the girl that lived in the house and provided the alcohol is being charged with manslaughter.


Laurie

[aggie94]

Without doing any research and with the acknowledgement that this is likely to be a gray area anyway, I would say that there is a reasonable risk that you could be, at a minimum, civilly liable if one of the kids was involved in a car accident after drinking at your house, even if you had not been present, since you have actual knowledge that this is going on at your house and have done nothing to prevent it. I can see it coming up as a lawsuit against you (and your homeowner's insurance policy) for negligence, and I can see that you might have some exposure in that case. But again, I am just guessing. Frankly, I wouldn't chance it.

[Gail]

I would be interested in knowing how the law views this in California. I would THINK that if a homeowner has no actual knowledge of alcohol consumption taking place in his home, and if if the homeowner takes no active part in providing the alcohol that he would not be considered liable.

...but could be soooooooooooooooooo wrong.

Edited to add: You know. I misread this. It sounds to me as though the activity of drinking on the premises was being condoned on occasion, in which event I'm thinking it sort of condones the activity in the household at any time. So I'm thinking that yes, the homeowner could be held liable at least in part.

Yep, yep. Wanna hear the REAL answer to this one!

[Kayaksoup]

I don't know about the legality, but I would be concerned with the ethics of it. My parents allowed me to host a party at our place once, but anyone who consumed alcohol was not allowed to drive. No exceptions.

[tbb113]

I know that if it was under age 21 drinking that is a whole different set of rules. My concern is those of legal age drinking and then driving home. Like I said, no one leaves obviously drunk and they know my house well enough that they would spend the night if they felt the need.

My real concern is the legal drinkers (not the underage drinkers).

ETA - I'm not talking a party. I'm talking 3 or 4 guys playing video games or watching a movie and having a beer or two during the course of the evening.

[blazedog]

I don't think one would be liable for over 21 drinkers. Under the scenario you present, no one could serve liquor of any kind to anyone at their house without risk.

The law requires some form of "bad" act.

Even under the stringent requirements of the dram shop laws where a bar owner is held to have a "duty" to not serve a drunk, there still must be knowledge or some kind of negligence as it isn't strict liability -- i.e. just because someone was at your bar and got into an accident, doesn't mean one is liable.

The analysis for under age drinking is completely different since a homeowner would in some way be held responsible for providing a "dangerous" environment.

Obviously I am disclaiming this as anything other than my theoretical analysis of tort law and a homeowner's responsibility to "adults" with respect to their having a drink in the homeowner's home -- I don't believe there is a "duty" to prevent harm to third parties under these set of facts -- adults and no one demonstrably drunk -- or more drunk than many of our guests are when leaving our home after party.

[sneezles]

Originally Posted by Gail

I would be interested in knowing how the law views this in California. I would THINK that if a homeowner has no actual knowledge of alcohol consumption taking place in his home, and if if the homeowner takes no active part in providing the alcohol that he would not be considered liable.

If there is a law pertaining to this then ignorance of it isn't a valid defense.

Curiouser is how can you know they are not driving home drunk if you are asleep when they leave or have no knowledge of them actually drinking?

[Gail]

Gee Susan, that seems yet another sticky wicket to me. If someone has no knowledge of something unlawful taking place in his or her home, it that considered ignorance of the law? I thought that was when a person does something illegal and has no idea he or she is breaking the law. Is that the same thing? Darned if I know.

...yet another case of ignorance of the law, wot?

[blazedog]

Originally Posted by Gail

Gee Susan, that seems yet another sticky wicket to me. If someone has no knowledge of something unlawful taking place in his or her home, it that considered ignorance of the law? I thought that was when a person does something illegal and has no idea he or she is breaking the law. Is that the same thing? Darned if I know.

...yet another case of ignorance of the law, wot?

Ignorance of the law goes to intent -- i.e. as long as one had the intent to commit the act, one doesn't have to "know" the act was illegal. Mens rea is not necessary -- merely the actus reus.

A classic law school example would be smuggling -- if one didn't know the object was in the suitcase versus if one didn't know the importing the object was illegal.

Tort law is more concerned with "duty of care" since it relates (generally) to negligence and whether an act was "reasonable" and what the "duty of care" owed to third parties is. I have put these terms in parentheses because they are legal terms of art in tort law.

Per my original post, I don't believe that under normal circumstances, a homeowner would be held liable because alcohol was consumed on their premises absent anything else.

I can't think of any cases in which a HO was held liable merely because adults consumed alcohol in his/her home -- because such act is something that a "reasonable" person generally does without an expectation that one is going to be held liable.

The analysis with respect to minors is completely different of course -- but no minors are involved. I would doubt that there is any liability based on the son having a duty of care to his over 21 year old friends -- again absent facts which the OP didn't mention.

[Gail]

Originally Posted by blazedog

...Mens rea is not necessary -- merely the actus reus.

Care to run that by me in English? While my medical Latin is reasonably up to speed, my legal Latin is virtually nil.

Originally Posted by blazedog

A classic law school example would be smuggling -- if one didn't know the object was in the suitcase versus if one didn't know the importing the object was illegal.

OK. So, in the first example above it's not a case of ignorance of the law, roughly similar to a situation where something illegal is going on in a person's home without his or her knowledge or consent? (or is it not as simple as that?) I understood your first post relating to the specific incident being asked about in the initial post. My question now relates to a hypothetical where something clearly illegal is taking place without the homeowner's knowledge.)

Forgive me the slight hijack, Tara. I find the entire subject quite interesting.

[blazedog]

[QUOTE=Gail;1512717]
OK. So, in the first example above it's not a case of ignorance of the law, roughly similar to a situation where something illegal is going on in a person's home without his or her knowledge or consent? (or is it not as simple as that?) I understood your first post relating to the specific incident being asked about in the initial post. My question now relates to a hypothetical where something clearly illegal is taking place without the homeowner's knowledge.)

That would be correct -- unless intent was imputed in some way -- i.e. a car or house can be seized but that's kind of a side bar to the analysis.

Mens rea is a "guilty mind" but in legal terms it doesn't necessarily mean that the person actually intended to break the law but merely formed the intent to commit the act which was unlawful.

Actus reus is the "action" which forms the element or elements of the crime.

There are some crimes where "intent" is significant in how a person would be charged -- i.e. "murder" versus criminally negligent homicide.

And of course the requirement for mens rea (in the legal sense) is how one gets the defense of insanity in which a person is incapable of forming "legal" intent.

It's been a VERY long time since I had to study this stuff for law school exams so I am no doubt leaving out some of the germane nuances -- however it's why "ignorance of the law is no excuse" so long as one has performed the act -- in my original suitcase scenario there was no "actus reus" there would be problems with the actus reus -- the smuggled object was put in the suitcase but the person carried it over the border without knowing it -- there was a conscious intent to carry the suitcase but not to carry the smuggled object.

And then when gets into the interesting question of "intent" crimes -- i.e. the person put the object in the suitcase but unknown to him the object was taken out or the suitcase was swapped -- intent to commit the crime even though the actual crime didn't take place.

Any criminal law experts feel free to weigh.

[tbb113]

Thanks! I didn't think I could be held responsible but I wasn't sure.

[Gail]

Verrry interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

[aggie94]

Originally Posted by tbb113

Thanks! I didn't think I could be held responsible but I wasn't sure.

Tyra,

Just to be clear, no one is giving you legal advice that you cannot be held responsible, and I still think if you do the research, you will find civil lawsuits against homeowners whose guests left their premises drunk and injured themselves or others as a result. I can remembering reading those cases in law school. It happens against bar owners all the time and against homeowners and party hosts as well. And whether you are home or not, these kids are clearly your guests as you are permitting them to be there and have knowledge that they are drinking in your home. If you didn't have knowledge, you wouldn't be asking us this question. Personally, I don't think it's worth the risk, but that's obviously your choice to make.

Also, to make clear, there is a significant difference between CRIMINAL and CIVIL liability. You didn't specify which you were asking about.

[blazedog]

Originally Posted by aggie94

Tyra,

Just to be clear, no one is giving you legal advice that you cannot be held responsible, and I still think if you do the research, you will find civil lawsuits against homeowners whose guests left their premises drunk and injured themselves or others as a result. I can remembering reading those cases in law school. It happens against bar owners all the time and against homeowners and party hosts as well. And whether you are home or not, these kids are clearly your guests as you are permitting them to be there and have knowledge that they are drinking in your home. If you didn't have knowledge, you wouldn't be asking us this question. Personally, I don't think it's worth the risk, but that's obviously your choice to make.

Also, to make clear, there is a significant difference between CRIMINAL and CIVIL liability. You didn't specify which you were asking about.

While anyone can sue, I am curious as to what the circumstances are that set this apart from anyone permitting adults to have a drink or two in their home because under the type of "strict liability" you are positing, anyone would be liable if a person ingested alcohol on their premises and then was involved in an accident -- which isn't the case.

Even under the stricter dram shop laws, the duty is to "cut off" an obvious drunk or to not serve an obscene number of drinks.

I am assuming the facts are as stated in the original post -- adults having a drink or two in a private residence.

[aggie94]

Blaze,

I'm not positing a strict liability theory. I'm saying that she doesn't really know what's going on in her home because she's NOT THERE, but at a minimum, she knows there are kids drinking at her house and then driving home. If one if them leaves drunk and kills someone on the way home, yeah, she's gonna get sued. Is it worth the risk?

[tbb113]

Eva & Blaze:
I know that anyone can sue anyone and that liablity is determined by a judge/jury (based on community laws). I realize that by allowing my son's friends to drink at my home there is a possibility that someone could leave drunk and have an accident. However, in general, they are all good men and that they aren't drinking to excess. Most of them still live at home with their parents and aren't stupid enough to go home rip-roaring drunk because they wouldn't want to upset their parents They also know they can always sleep here for any reason (and I frequently find an overnight guest because they were just too tired to drive home)

Like I said in my original post, it was a hypothetical question at this point but I realized that if I had the question, other people would have wondered about it as well.

[blazedog]

Originally Posted by tbb113

Eva & Blaze:
I know that anyone can sue anyone and that liablity is determined by a judge/jury (based on community laws). I realize that by allowing my son's friends to drink at my home there is a possibility that someone could leave drunk and have an accident. However, in general, they are all good men and that they aren't drinking to excess. Most of them still live at home with their parents and aren't stupid enough to go home rip-roaring drunk because they wouldn't want to upset their parents They also know they can always sleep here for any reason (and I frequently find an overnight guest because they were just too tired to drive home)

Like I said in my original post, it was a hypothetical question at this point but I realized that if I had the question, other people would have wondered about it as well.

I was basing my "answer" on that fact situation - that your home wasn't being used for Bacchanals while you were out.