Court Opinion

ID: 9714386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:36:18.734846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:25.683875
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KNECHT, dissenting: I disagree with the majority and do not believe Cravens need be read so narrowly. Further, our opinion in Quinn v. Sigma Rho Chapter of Beta Theta Pi Fraternity (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 231, 507 N.E.2d 1193, is supportive of plaintiff’s position. We are asked to expand the present state of the law, but that request is not surprising given the decision in Cravens and societal concern with the abuse of alcohol by underage drinkers. The questions of ultimate recovery, the merits of plaintiff’s position and whether the decedent’s friends or roommates somehow intervened and broke any chain of causation are not before us. This pleading and the motion to dismiss hinge on duty. Does a social host have a duty to refrain from furnishing intoxicants to underage guests? The answer is yes. The public policy and statutory law make that conduct a crime. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 43, par. 131. Hazing is a Class B misdemeanor. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 144, par. 221.) The violation of that statute was a significant part of our decision in Quinn. In my view, the legal prohibition against furnishing alcohol to minors is designed for the protection of human life, health and welfare. The violation of such a statute is prima facie evidence of negligence. (First National Bank v. City of Aurora (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 1, 9, 373 N.E.2d 1326, 1330.) The decedent here was 18 and was a member of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect. The decedent suffered the harm the statute was designed to prevent, i.e., he became intoxicated and died. Our decision in Quinn is logically and legally supportive of extending social host liability in this case. Perhaps it can be argued the decedent did this to himself by choosing to consume vast quantities of alcohol. That argument does not address the issue of whether a cause of action has been stated against social hosts who — on the basis of the complaint — furnished alcohol to underage drinkers, took no precautions to prevent underage drinking, tacitly encouraged the drinking because of easy availability and then did nothing when decedent became intoxicated and unconscious. It is foreseeable and likely that bad things will happen when underage drinkers consume alcohol to the point of inebriation. What burden is it to prevent such an occurrence? One might choose not to serve alcohol at large social gatherings where consumption cannot be regulated. One might choose to obey the law and refrain from furnishing alcohol to underage guests. Those steps are not burdensome. The activity was illegal and dangerous. Cravens may suggest the serious problem is limited to drunk drivers and the harm caused to third persons. Both Quinn and this case suggest the problem goes beyond the highways and intrudes into our schools, our social lives, our families and our homes. Plaintiff may never recover. Plaintiff may not deserve to recover. There may be no liability. There may be an intervening cause. Those are matters for another day. For now, the plaintiff has stated a cause of action.