Has an impiaired driver caused injury or a wrongful death of a loved one?

Civil liability of impaired drivers, especially when they try to spread around liability to other places (like where they drank or who they were with) is quite common in personal injury law.  Cases involving commercial hosts like bars and tavers are sometimes difficult and convoluted with so many liability issues that it is imperative that you speak to a lawyer.

There are many cases decided by our higher courts with respect to tavern liability and the over-service of alcohol.  Generally lawyers firstly try and determine if there is a duty of care that is owed by the taverns to their patrons and whether or not a duty is also owed to third parties who might reasonably be expected to come into to contact with the patron(s) and to whom the patron may pose some risk. Third parties could mean anyone else using a highway if an intoxicated patron is over-served and allowed to drive.  If the patron drives while intoxicated and is involved in a car accident, it is only chance which results in the patron being injured rather than the third party.  Therefore the courts have determined that the risk to third parties on the road when the patron is intoxicated and driving can be real and foreseeable. 
 
This was the exact issue that was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Stewart v. Pettie which is a seminal decision with respect to tavern liability.  In that case, Stewart Pettie and three other people attended a dinner theatre in Edmonton for an evening of dinner and live theatre.  They arrived with their group at around 7:00 pm and the dinner, which was a full buffet, followed at approximately 7:45p.m. The Pettie table was served by the same waitress all night and she kept a running total of all alcoholic beverages ordered which she presented at the end of the evening for payment.

Stewart Pettie drank about seven double rum and cokes or about fourteen ounces of liquor. Despite the amount that he had to drink, he exhibited zero signs of intoxication.  The court noted that the appearance was deceiving because he was intoxicated by the end of the evening. The party left the theatre, Stewart Pettie got behind the wheel, and involved the group in a terrible accident when he lost momentary control of the vehicle, swerved to the right, hopped the curb and struck a light pole. One of the passengers who was not wearing her seat belt, was thrown across the car, struck her head and was rendered a quadriplegic.

The question was not only was a duty of care owed between the tavern and the patron ingesting the alcohol, but also was a duty owed between the tavern and the third party, namely the woman who was rendered a quadriplegic. The court found that there was a duty of care.  However a simple over-service of alcohol does not mean that a standard care on behalf of the bar was breached. Because somebody is over-served, it does not mean that it establishes negligence. What lawyers need to prove is that there was a foreseeable risk that was breached. The court found that the dinner theatre could not escape liability simply because Stewart Pettie was not exhibiting any signs of intoxication.  The question here was that the waitress kept a running tab and she knew exactly how much he had to drink over a five hour period. On the basis of this knowledge alone, yes, there is an issue of foreseeablity.  She knew, or ought to have known he was becoming intoxicated whether or not he was exhibiting visible symptoms of intoxication. However, the defence for the bar argued that in the circumstances it was reasonable for the dinner theatre to assume that all 4 people at the table were not travelling separately and it was reasonable to assume that the person who was not intoxicated was driving the vehicle or would be driving the vehicle, or find alternate transportation for the group. Because of this the plaintiff simply was unable to prove that there was an issue of forseeability. Because there was no foreseeable risk, it was found that the dinner theatre did not breach a duty of care they owed to the third party that became a quadriplegic.

If you change the facts a little bit and imagine that there are only two people at the dinner theatre getting smashed, and the waitress knew exactly how much these two people had to drink, it would then be foreseeable that they would pose risk to themselves, to each other and to third parties on the road. It would be foreseeable that one of them might get behind the wheel and drive. If you have two people drinking in a bar and they ingest a large amount of alcohol in a short amount of a time, then the tavern may not be able to discharge the issue of foreseeable risk and escape liability. It was almost certain that some liability will be apportioned to the bar. Therefore, all these cases involving commercial establishments are decided on their own facts.

If you have been injured or a loved one had been injured or killed as a result of being over-served in a commercial establishment, please do not hesitate to contact Matt Lalande at Haber and Associates.