Court Opinion

ID: 9794362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:04:36.5693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:14:55.630257
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
concurring specially:
The trial court sustained defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on its finding that there was no authority to extend liability to a social host. I agree with that evaluation of the law and further advocate the correctness of that legal position *1350and the desirability of adopting it. Public policy considerations weigh strongly against extending liability to social hosts. A recent law review article notes it would be unfair to hold the social host to the same standard as the commercial vendor as the average social host receives no economic gain from furnishing alcohol, is less economically able to sustain liability and is not experienced at recognizing signs of intoxication. See Walking the Line of Liquor Liability: Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Todd, 27 Tulsa L.J. 69 (1991).
I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s judgment. I would, however, simply hold that under these facts liability cannot be imposed on social hosts. I am authorized to state that JUSTICE DOOLIN joins with me in the views expressed herein.