next case on the call the docket today is case number one one zero seven two four janet bell individually cetera versus jeffrey self that sounds pronounced it agenda number nine counsel mr this is a social host liability case and the issue which the hot souls bring before the court is whether under the facts alleged in the plaintiff's complaint the hot sores were social host under illinois law and therefore immune from liability for the cause of action alleged by the plaintiff the appellate court found that the hots for those were not social hosts and that therefore the plaintiff's cause of action against the fals for their alleged voluntary undertaking to supervise their son's party and prevent alcohol drinking could proceed the only basis for the appellate court's finding that the hustles were not we found for colic court cases in which the defendants were found to be social hosts where they did not supply the alcohol the first is richardson versus in sco the third district nine hundred seventy nine case where the plaintive alleges that an employer permitted an employee to drink at a job site and thereafter took a coworker home and crashed there was no allegation that the employer supplied or furnished the alcohol the employee was alleged to have simply allowed to drink the appellate court still found the liability because the only remedy for injuries resulting from the intoxication was under the dram shop act which only applied to the commercial suppliers of alcohol a second case where the defendant did not supply the alcohol was c third district nine hundred eighty three where the plaintiff alleged that the parents of the minor negligently stored the alcohol so that it was accessible to the minor who gave it to another minor there were no allegations and colter that the parents furnished or supplied the alcohol the appellate court said that the parents weren't rideable because they were social hosts in denying the pla attempt to extend the liability to the defendants in that case the court said any extension for damages arising from intoxication must come from the legislature and not the courts a third case is held versus bre first district nine hundred eighty three the plaintiff alleges that the parents were negligent in allowing their son to sell alcohol at the parents home the plaintiff also adds that the parents negligent permitted a guest to become intoxicated there was no allegation that the parents supplied the alcohol they own the home where their son had the alcohol and sold it again the appellate court found that the case the plane of a minor alleged that the defendant homeowners willfully and wantonly allowed that minor to drink alcohol become intoxicated at the parent's home and then slipped on a rug and was injured there were no allegations that the parents supplied the alcohol the allegations were the parents allowed the minor to drink the alcohol the court found that the parents were social hosts and not liable for the intoxication related injury one more case which is instructive as miller versus moran fourth district nine hundred eighty one in miller the defendants were host of a fish fry and the pla allege that the defendants served or supervised the service of alcohol the court found that there is no possible liability for these hosts for either the service of the alcohol or the supervision of the service of the alcohol the miller court also cited the richardson case which i just mention and noted that in richardson the defendants did not serve the alcohol they merely allowed the intoxication to occur which the plaintiff allege was negligent but the court found that there was no duty under the social host's law so all of these cases that i just cited arise out of intoxication and aghast at someone's home or someone's party they all include allegations of negligence in allowing a guest to become intoxicated or failing to prevent a guest or an employee from becoming intoxicated all of the cases were dismissed by the appellate court of the social host community dr none of the courts distinguish between supplying the alcohol allowing the alcohol preventing the alcohol or negligently storing the alcohol they said that because it was alcohol related it was preempted by legislation which does not provide for a civil cause of action so in today's case we have an allegation against my clients that they breached their duty to prevent the intoxication of mr bell based on the case law that i just described richardson colter health samir and miller the hutches were just as much social support of his argument but in both simmons and walk or that's the duties that arose in those cases arose after the intoxication had occurred in both of those cases you could take alcohol out of the picture and still arrive at the same result in either of those cases simmons or walk or lets the guest could have suffered a stroke could have suffered a seizure could have taken drugs before arriving and become incapacitated in the same way strokes and sometimes looked like at intoxication seizures can sometimes look like intoxication the negligence in those cases arose out of the way arose later following a series of actions taken by club employees in response to discovering her modest vomiting in the men's room at that point employees allegedly ejected home ottis and his friendship boarded the parking attendant to bring his car around to the front door and assisted him out us into the vehicle directing him then to leave then rocker lets the court stated the liability of defendants if any is not contingent on their status as complaint defendant's liability arises by virtue of their voluntary assumption of a duty to care for elizabeth after she became unconscious irrespective of the circumstances leading up to that  point we do not have a remotely similar situation in the case before the court today the voluntary undertaking alleged in our case cannot exist without the drinking of alcohol and the intoxication mr bell you cannot remove alcohol from the allegations and still have a cause of action this case fall squarely within the ladder of the law and the spirit of the law that social  that the breach of that voluntarily undertaken duty increased the risk of harm either increased the risk of harm or that the the scene relied upon the alleged voluntary undertaking the complaint does not allege either of those so now your honor i don't believe that the complaint does state a cause of action for a voluntary undertaking so it would just have to case doesn't need to be decided that it doesn't have to go any further that once you decide if you decide that the hot souls were social host and therefore immune from liability then it doesn't matter what voluntary undertaking the pla based on the facts alleged in their complaint my client would be immune from any liability because that completely underlying complaint makes no allegations that are anywhere similar to walk allege or symonds in which  they make no allegations that mr bell became incapacitated somehow regardless of whether there was alcohol involved and then my clients undertook the duty to either help him or not help  in this case the underlying complaint simply alleges over fifty allegations of of alcohol related activity at my client's home and that mr bell bollen tara lee came to that party voluntarily allegedly drank at that party and then voluntarily left that part and that's as far as the allegations go so as far as we know from the allegations of the plate mr bell left that party subsequently having his car crash there is no duty alleged that the hot seals had some sort of duty outside their promises to have followed mr bell the only allegations against my client are that they voluntarily undertook a duty to monitor the party and provide alcohol doing it it's no different than any of these other dumper of cases that we've seen over the years and that i've cited in which the parents have allegedly failed to prevent ring allow drinking a son who was selling beer in the basement party because the court in that case expressed the recognized cause of action based on voluntary undertaken against social isn't that your position lets the young woman have become incapacitated in the courts it doesn't matter how that person became incapacitated the whether she was drinking alcohol before that didn't want me let me ask it this way i think you said to and see whether or not we decide that the voluntary undertaking was not sufficiently lad but you said we don't if we find for you on the social host portion of this that we don't have to address that i believe we're going to hear differently from mr george but i'm not sure of that but i but i think he's going to say that would be an alternative basis in which he could prevail in this case if this court found that it was sufficiently pled or we send it back to the appellate court on that issue that that would be another sufficient basis i just want to understand you are using social you know we find that social hosts in this case game over exempt from liability even if there was a voluntary undertaking yes yes under the facts that the pleated in this complaint that's exactly opposition that if you find out that my clients were social ho not liable for alcohol related injuries that under the fact pleaded in this case it a voluntary undertaking does not circumvent that immunity and it's similar to the flo case in which a parent allowed her minor underage drinking son and friends to drink at her home but said i have a rule you cannot leave the house if you're intoxicated well two of the kids broke the rule of law and and were injured but the court said acknowledging that a parent can't detain aghast because it's against the law you can't detain someone against their will but regardless of that the court said that the allegation of a voluntary undertaking is an attempt to circumvent the social host immunity and that's the case in our case today that the allegations of the complaint today simply allege that my clients allowed a party to go on at their house tried to prevent the drinking failed to prevent the drinking and subsequently someone left and had a car crash was injured and injured other people those are the facts of hundreds of cases that we've had over the years that the immunity of the social host law over those hundred years applies to those facts that there isn't now if if you can come up with a whole new set of facts to leds in this case or somehow the hostiles are alleged to have undertaken a duty after mr bell became intoxicated and left the party then that's a different case but that is not what's alleged in the fifty four paragraphs of facts in the underlying complaint there's no allegation that would fit performed that duty to take care of the guest so that's why i say yes it doesn't matter today if you decide in favor of my clients that they were social hosts that immune th the plaintiff can't plead a voluntary undertaking cause of action which would circumvent their immunity  decision to stand in allowing this complaint to stand against my clients as mentioned in the charles court if you adopt social host liability by allowing this complaint to stand you'll be faced with determining whether only the injured party only the injured third party can collect and recover whether the intoxicated person him or herself should be allowed to recover against a social host is there an exception for minors what if the minor provides the alcohol to another minor in his own home should a social host be held liable only when he or she knows the entire executed person will drink and drive or should the host be held liable for all types of alcohol related injuries so that those are some of the a two six fifteen motion to dismiss the second district appellate court and elgin reversed it when they found that the public that when they found the complaint stated a cause of action against the parents who were at home engaged in what was happening in their home promising to enforce no one bridge drinking and driving and ultimately doing nothing despite that voluntary undertaking we contend that the complaint stated sufficient facts to set forth the cause of action for a voluntary undertaking moreover the complaint sufficiently stated an implied private right of action against the defendants for violent for violating section six sixteen of the liquor control act  just as the defendants knew that daniel bell had consumed alcohol in their home and left to drive his vehicle they had promised their son and conversations before the party that they were going to monitor and inspect the premises and be around to make sure that no drinking and driving was going to take place they knew that their son had friends coming over for a party they knew that their son had had  alcoholic issues in his past and with drinking and driving just drinking and driving they promise that no one would be allowed to drink and drive as any good parent would want that were there there are they they raised and left open the garage door and interior doors they turned on the lights for party goers so people could readily come in and out of the house denny bell parked right in the driveway they no facts like that were pled the risk of harm facts were pled there are fifty six allegations in the complaint that that showed that a cause of action existed now to address the question of justice freiman there were no allegations made by the defendants in their two six fifteen motion to dismiss in front of judge hall that the complaints they failed to state a cause of action because there was some deficiency with the facts that were played in the four corners their argument was there was no duty raised and that was the only argument that judge hall heard and that was the only argument that judge hall used as the basis or to dismissing the complaint so our argument is that the defendants in this case the appellant's waived that cause of action waived that argument they didn't make that argument and then they had their appellate briefs or before judge  case the defendants were clearly on notice that the driver was drunk that was alleged and nonetheless put him in the car and directed him to leave the club versus the facts of this as it was there are similar facts they did know that danny bell was drunk they didn't have opportunities to see him drinking after that in their negligent inspection and monitoring of the promises made they did open the garage door and allow people free to the premises and they did know that denny bell was leaving the premises when he was intoxicated after voluntarily assuming the duty to not allow that they do the defendant's liability is not contingent on the status as social posts in this lutes it is a relevant for purposes of the plan is voluntary undertaking counts whether defendants were acting a social hopes go back and you said was there any thing in the allegations that indicated that the defendants were specifically aware that there was in some you know yes it is alleged that they when about the premises saw people specifically gania bill they had he had conversations with daniel bell when in an intoxicated state before he left he was in the basement drinking he said mr hart's all saw people drinking he saw he talked to the spoke with danny bell and knew he was intoxicated those are in the complaint i believe they are judge the liability of the defendants a rose by virtue of their voluntary assumption of the duty to monitor and inspect to ensure no underage drinking would take place there are no fun and no fact in the complaint alleges that the defendant supplied alcohol with it was  voluntary undertaking that you're alleging as broad as ensuring that no one go because i think you have different allegations point dealing with a voluntary undertaking the parents allegedly spoke to their son and then what happened during the course or if the did the hudsons told their son and and had an agreement between themselves that they were not going to allow any alcohol to be in the premises drunk by the the appellant's know reading of charles that in their argument contends that it prohibits the assumption of any duty that relates to alcohol the defendants didn't supply alcohol store alcohol or affirmatively permits consumption therefore they are not social hosts this court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the well settled common law is that no liability is imposed on a person who gives or sells alcohol to another person that is later harmed  seeking to change this conclusion since it does not apply to these facts did nothing right never told her son that they had any care in the world whatsoever i think that there would be no allegation of voluntary undertaking in this case and likely the complaint would never been filed that wasn't the facts here the facts as relate to this case were that there was a voluntary undertaking they did not want they wanted to they tried to be good parents but instead they they they allowed themselves to try him more than more than be good parents to try and be cruel parents they wanted to be involved they wanted to talk to the kids that were there they they afterwards it came out in the investigation and in the prosecution of mr hustle and in a criminal aspect that these facts existed and it was only through a care criminal transcript that the complaint was fashioned to based on those facts and the facts that came out in the criminal case all up on justice garments question public policy issues we should be concerned about are we sending a message or we accept your rationale that this was a voluntary undertaking and that parents who try to control that don't do your job down are liable all allegations when you have these kind of facts taking place if my client had been sixteen or seventeen years old there be a statute right on point for a civil private right of action against the hustles for violating that statute that's not what happens here however for eighteen nineteen twenty year old kids people that are not allowed to drink there needs to be some avenue if people are not social hosts but undertake additional duties by their very actions and omissions once they see under went once they do them once they undertake to make sure that no one will that no drinking will take place in the house that no access to their home to alcohol in their home will be done they have to do it and a reasonable fashion mr goodman we had a conversation earlier about the allegations in the complaint you said you believe that there were specific allegations with respect to what the defendants knew about daniel bill's condition and in letting him go home you know i only quickly looked at it i don't find it so i think there's what i see about daniel bell was that he was at the party that he didn't consume alcohol before he and specific knowledge i don't find i'm not saying they're not there but in a court review i don't fit find them so my question is when we talk about simmons you know a strip club allegations that the person that they knew the the specific person was drunk and poured him into a car and knew he was going to drive away with your position be different if there were no allegations in this complaint about specific knowledge about what the defendants knew about the condition and the fact that the annual bill was going to drive away so seems like a trick question justice thomas  children drinking alcohol that there was a strong sense of smell of alcohol that so they undertook party if there was a party with five hundred people we just expand the hypothetical the fact that they said we don't want any drinking in this house we don't want people to drink and drive if there were no oil a geisha is in any complaint everybody who was at that party there was a voluntary undertaking as to anybody who came in went at th purdy all night by these by these parents if there were no facts that a volunteer and or taking had no known less if if there were no allegations of specific knowledge as to somebody being thrown in them allowing them to drive home doesn't matter as long as they know that there's brinkema at this party there is a voluntary undertaking as the each and every individual is at their birth well to ensure that they get home safe or whatever these issues did not come up in this case in front of the court but to answer your question more specifically there is i think under two six one five and we never got to the to any real discovering the case we never did any depositions so the reality is as you know the plaintiff is entitle to all reasonable inferences and a court hearing a motion to dismiss a two six one five and i think any reasonable inference would have allowed the judge to find that when there is all th alcohol in the house a strong smell of alcohol there talking to people who are obviously intoxicated that that indeed intoxicated children are leaving the premises and driving from the promise we don't have allegations here do we where it's daniel bell stumbling out to a car and these parents saying go ahead drive home you're at your own risk we don't have them which would be quite similar to the simmons case in their in their regard i mean you would at least admit that the allegations in the complaint don't assert that that's correct but i think that that based on mr also being in the basement of the promise speaking to a party years party goers including denny bell knowing full well what they were intoxicated and then allowed and then knowing that those people would appoint were going to be leaving the premises in that intoxicated who drank and drove how is this distinguishable from florrie versus i actually think that when council made use of the flurry case it was an opposite to the argument that they were making th arises only after intoxication in that case the duty arose prior to the intoxication just like it does in this case so i  to leave and then this these kids live and had this run this event i think in the hearts of case this case they did more than that they did more they went up and down the stairs they inspected they turned on the lights they did they talked to people they did the kind of things that were necessary to further their duty and and did so in a way that showed that they were not doing it in a reasonable bill was drinking so i want to make that clear but anyway you said in response to that just as tyson's question anyone that they knew was drinking at the purdy that's who they were the duty to write i think anybody who they had an opportunity to know was drinking and was going to leave the party driving ok they had to do the extended somebody they knew at the purdy was not drinking and was a passenger in the curb with somebody who was during and  were other was a passenger in my client's vehicle who was killed that cause of action was mirrored the same cause of action it's the same complaint and judge mullen at and lake county found that cause of action existed under the two six one five the same two six one five motion filed by defendant's ok so the duly would extend past who they knew was drinking but who they allowed to go in the current with somebody who was three that's correct would it extend to  victim of a courier accident would somebody who left the purdy who was right i think that that would be a little far afield i think we're talking about the voluntary undertaking as relates to the people at the party if they were going to monitor and inspect and not allow any drinking and driving to take place or so believes instead in the tree hits another car and causes an accident kills someone else to do the stops there i think that that at some point in time there there should be release or questions are eventually going to be answered right if we expand the duty whether it's reasonably foreseeable that someone drone can get into an accident you know and i don't think that we're really looking forward to change the law we're really just clarifying the facts of this case under simmons under waka luge and finding that these type of acts have nothing to do with social hosts but have more to do with the voluntary undertaking i appreciate the opportunity to be heard thank you very much i think counsel  i think justice thomas you're actually right on point with regard to the where does the duty end and as i prepared for this and worked with colleagues  it became a circular argument that the more you try to separate the voluntary undertaking in this case you can't separate it from the alcohol and the intoxication just doesn't work you can't say like you do and walk a list that well had daniel bell become incapacitated and crashed his car for another reason because he took drugs before you got to the party or he had a stroke or he had a seizure it doesn't work in this case so the more we argued that well the hospital's under took a duty to prevent alcohol drinking at their home they breached the duty because the underage drinkers got the booze and drank it and as approximate result mr bell in this case one often drove a car in another case  a kid went off with another kid and shot him in another case another kid went off in a car but those cases the immunity apply how does it change in this case where because souls attempt and fail to monitor the party somehow they they've upped the ante here and created for themselves a duty that doesn't exist for those who are negligent but never said that they were going to monitor the party and negligently fail to monitor the party or just stay up in their rooms and don't monitor the party at all so the problem we have here is that the more arguments you make it keeps coming back to being an alcohol related problem which over the course of one hundred years and then most recently in charles and walk the lips and simmons has said this is a job for the legislature this is not a job for a case by case analysis of a fact intensive  situation for this court to say yeah this case the hot cells are liable that case the the breeze are not liable it's just it's not a this court as it is is just not equipped to to decide the case and set out all the parameters for when a social host is now going to be liable for undertaking or for voluntarily undertaking to monitor their own home in a party where alcohol is present so i would ask the court to rule in favor of my client's old will rule the appellate court's decision in reinstate the dorchin thank you for your arguments today