Opinion ID: 2609904
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Duty based on common-law principles

Text: Many state courts faced with a claim against a social host who served alcohol to a minor have found this to be a valid cause of action properly before the judiciary. Cravens v. Inman, 223 Ill. App.3d 1059, 166 Ill. Dec. 409, 586 N.E.2d 367 (Ill.Ct.App. 1991) (citing cases), rev. granted, 143 Ill.2d 637, 167 Ill.Dec. 398, 587 N.E.2d 1013 (1992), appeal dismissed, 168 Ill.Dec. 19, 589 N.E.2d 133 (1992). See generally Edward L. Raymond, Jr., Annotation, Social Hosts Liability for Injuries Incurred by Third Parties as a Result of Intoxicated Guest's Negligence, 62 A.L.R. 4th 16 (1988). A minority of courts have left this problem to their legislatures for various reasons. See, e.g., Cravens, 166 Ill.Dec. at 420, 586 N.E.2d at 375-78. Most have deferred because their legislatures had entered the field and they felt the policy decisions were better left to them. See, e.g., Bankston v. Brennan, 507 So.2d 1385, 1387 (Fla. 1987). As noted above, we believe that the legislature invited this court to decide the question of liability for those who furnish alcohol to minors by declaring an immunity extending only to adults. See A.R.S. § 4-301. It is especially appropriate for this court to address this issue because, under Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 6, Arizona's judiciary shares responsibility for the evolution of the law of torts. Law v. Superior Court of State of Arizona, 157 Ariz. 147, 156, 755 P.2d 1135, 1143 (1993), ([T]his court has an obligation to participate in the evolution of tort law so that it may reflect societal and technological changes.) (citing Summerfield v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 467, 698 P.2d 712 (1985)). This court is a proper forum in which to resolve this important issue. As we have held: [T]he common law, which is judge-made and judge-applied, can and will be changed when changed conditions and circumstances establish that it is unjust or has become bad public policy. In reevaluating previous decisions in light of present facts and circumstances, we do not depart from the proper role of the judiciary. Ontiveros, 136 Ariz. at 504, 667 P.2d at 204. Before 1983, this court arguably recognized the common-law rule of non-liability for tavern owners and, presumably and a fortiori, for social hosts. Id. Traditional authority held that when an able-bodied man [11] caused harm because of his intoxication, the act from which liability arose was the consuming not the furnishing of alcohol. See also Megge v. United States, 344 F.2d 31, 32 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 831, 86 S.Ct. 69, 15 L.Ed.2d 74 (1965); 45 Am.Jur.2d Intoxicating Liquors § 553 (1969). However, the common law also provides that: One who supplies ... a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise ... to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others ... is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 390 (1965) (hereinafter RESTATEMENT). Arizona's courts have repeatedly followed the RESTATEMENT'S analysis in this area. See Powell v. Langford, 58 Ariz. 281, 119 P.2d 230 (1941) (lending car to intoxicated driver); Lutfy v. Lockhart, 37 Ariz. 488, 295 P. 975 (1931) (giving automobile to incompetent driver); see also Ontiveros, 136 Ariz. at 508, 667 P.2d at 208 (same analysis as RESTATEMENT § 390). Even in an earlier era, it was actionable negligence to furnish a minor with a dangerous instrument. For example, in Anderson v. Settergren, 100 Minn. 294, 111 N.W. 279 (1907), relying on a criminal statute making it illegal for one under the age of fourteen to possess a gun, the Minnesota Supreme Court held the defendant liable for damage resulting from furnishing a thirteen-year-old with a gun. The court stated: `Every man must be taken to contemplate the probable consequence of the act he does.' Id. 111 N.W. at 280-81 (quoting Townsend v. Wathen, 103 Eng.Rep. 579, 580-81 (1808)). [12] This principle, like RESTATEMENT § 390, found common application in cases involving furnishing cars to inexperienced, youthful, or intoxicated drivers. See Engleman v. Traeger, 136 So. 527, 530 (Fla. 1931) (every court in the land has recognized liability for entrusting a car to a person who is drinking); Ransom v. City of Garden City, 113 Idaho 202, 743 P.2d 70 (1987) (city can be liable when police officer entrusted keys to intoxicated person who then caused an automobile accident). We perceive little difference in principle between liability for giving a car to an intoxicated youth and liability for giving drinks to a youth with a car. If there should be a difference between duty in the former and the latter, no case cited has explained it to us, and we perceive none. If the recipient is known to be incompetent to receive the dangerous instrument, it is irrelevant whether it is a loaded gun, a car, or alcohol. The theory of recovery is the same and was well-established long ago. This, perhaps, is the unarticulated rationale explaining why so many states now impose either common-law or statutory liability in cases such as this. See Cravens, 166 Ill.Dec. at 416, 586 N.E.2d at 374 (listing states). Perhaps these states have interpreted common-law concepts of duty as broad enough to encompass the liability of one who furnishes alcohol to a minor. See, e.g., Wiener v. Gamma Pi, 258 Or. 632, 485 P.2d 18 (1971); Congini v. Portersville Valve Co., 504 Pa. 157, 470 A.2d 515 (1983); Koback v. Crook, 123 Wis.2d 259, 366 N.W.2d 857 (1985).