Court Opinion

ID: 9862275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:05:48.666056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:53.711150
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, specially concurring: I concur in the majority opinion. However, I write separately to point out that the certified question and the plaintiffs complaint make it clear that what plaintiff is attempting here is to disguise a case for social host liability in lamb’s clothing. Facts: Social host had party. Social guest consumed alcoholic beverages. Someone got hurt. Plaintiff adds the fact that the social host knew or should have known that the intoxicated social guest had a “propensity of being violent when drinking alcohol.” It is clear that a social host also can presume that one who drinks excessive amounts of alcohol has a propensity to not drive very well. Nonetheless, the supreme court has made it clear that the law in this state is and has been that there is no social host liability. Charles v. Seigfried, 165 Ill. 2d 482 (1995). Faced with much more compelling facts than those presented in the case before us, our supreme court made it clear that if Illinois is going to recognize causes of action for social host liability, that recognition is going to have to come from the legislature and not the courts. Charles v. Seigfried, 165 Ill. 2d at 504.