« Self-promotional moment | Main | These vagabond shoes »
May 09, 2006
Good decision; no solution
It would have been insane for the Supreme Court to rule other than as it did on the matter of a party host's liability for his guests' actions (which isn't to say it couldn't have happened). But my cycnical side suspects that Colby Cosh overstates the case when he says (subscribers only) that "Any poll would be likely to show ferocious public opposition to the concept of imposing a duty of care on hosts for their guests' behaviour after a party." I don't think you would find ferocious public opposition to anything that would tangibly benefit a crippled young victim of a drunk driver and hypothetically decrease the incidence of such tragedies in the future. MADD is feverishly in support of imposing a duty of care on party hosts, and they raised nearly $11 million in donations in 2005. I suspect that you'd find roughly a 50/50 split on the question "Should a host be liable for his guests' actions," when posed in the context of Zoe Childs and Desmond Desormeaux, with "ferocious opposition" reserved for the question "Should you be liable for your guests' actions."
Cosh's larger point — that the distinction between bars and private homes seems arbitrary, and that the ideal state of affairs would make drunk driving the sole responsibility of the drunk driver — is very well taken:
[Chief Justice Beverly] McLachlin argues in her ruling that monitoring patrons for drunkenness is "relatively easy" for a bar serving hundreds of patrons. The curious implication is that doing so would be more difficult for a host serving five party guests. Publicans can be required to monitor their customers, she insists, because they possess "special knowledge about intoxication" that is not available to party hosts. The nature of this knowledge is not outlined -- but the reference must have been antagonizing to Childs' lawyers, since the entire point of their case was that Desmond Desormeaux's hosts did have "special knowledge" of his status as an alcoholic and chronic drunk driver.
For killing Derek Dupre and crippling Childs, his third drunk driving offence, Desormeaux served two years of a landmark ten-year sentence — this was then the harshest penalty ever handed out in Canada for impaired driving. Theoretically, he could have gotten life. I have no idea whether harsh sentencing would deter people like Desormeaux from driving drunk. I suspect they can't be deterred from much with ten or twelve rounds in. But I do know that there's nothing except his own easily medicated conscience to stop Desormeaux from doing this all over again to someone else, and that this state of affairs exists in clear violation of the spirit of the Criminal Code.
The crime is "impaired driving causing death." Inebriation isn't an excuse; it's a prerequisite. It makes a mockery of the law to impose penalties on repeat offenders that are so much more lenient than what its creators intended, and it endangers us all.
(Cross-posted to the Shotgun.)
Posted by Chris Selley at May 9, 2006 05:53 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/388
Comments
I'm really not sure how to square this ruling with the Ontario one that held a company partially liable when a woman drank at the company party turned down the offer of a hotel room, left the company party, drank at another bar, then got in an accident.....
Posted by: Craig at May 10, 2006 02:00 PM
No need to, Craig. The Supreme Court isn't bound by the Ontario precedent.
Posted by: Sean at May 10, 2006 05:04 PM
Sean - didn't you get the memo? Justices of Superior Courts are infallible; that's why you're not allowed to criticise 'em. The shocker is that two groups of infallible beings would come to contradictory conclusions - I leave that discussion to those who ponder irresistable forces and immovable objects...
Posted by: DCardno at May 10, 2006 06:52 PM
Great Site. Keep up the good work and have a nice day :)
Posted by: Jack at May 24, 2006 01:51 AM