302 / 462
GAZETTE
i SEPTEMBER 1991
under the above provision, signi-
ficant issues arise concerning
Company X's possible civil liability
for damages caused by employees
who become intoxicated on its
premises. Although Massachusetts
has no so-called 'Dram Shop'
statute, recent case law has
suggested that a social host may
be found to be liable under a theory
of common law negligence for
injuries to persons caused by
guests who become intoxi-
cated on the
social
hos t 's
premises. In
McGuiggan -v- New
England Telephone and Telegraph
Company, et at,
398 Mass. 152,
162 (1986), the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court stated as
follows:
"We would recognise a social
host's liability to a person injured
by an intoxicated guest's negli-
gent operation of a motor vehicle
where a social host who knew
or should have known that his
guest was drunk, nevertheless,
gave him or permitted him to
take an alcoholic drink and,
thereafter, because of his in-
toxication, the guest negligently
operated a mo t or vehicle,
causing the third person's injury.
In deciding whether the social
host exercised statutory pru-
dence in such circumstances, a
relevant consideration will be
whether this social host knew or
reasonably should have known
that the intoxicated guest might
presently operate a motor
vehicle".
Although the facts of that case
exculpated the defendants under
this standard, it is not difficult to
see the potential risk Company X
runs by having these weekly
gatherings. Although Company X
may argue that it is not a " h o s t "
in the same manner as an individual
who provides food and alcohol at
a party at his personal residence,
should an employee become
intoxicated and then cause injury to
a third person on his way home,
Company X would likely be the
target of the plaintiff both because
of this newly articulated legal
standard as well as its 'deep
pocket' status. In this connection,
it cannot be seriously disputed that
Company X knows most of the
participating "gues t s" will soon
operate motor vehicles to return
home.
This concern appears well
grounded given the discussion in
Langemann -v- Davis
where the
Court held the defendant to be not
liable. In that case, the Court
emphasised that the defendant was
". . . . recent case law has
suggested that a social host may
be found to be liable under. . .
common law negligence for
injuries to persons caused by
guests who become intoxicated
on .the social host's premises."
not at home at the time of the party
in question; had never kept alcoholic
beverages; had left no alcoholic
beverages in the home before
leaving the party; and did not
observe anyone consuming alcohol
at the homa Contrasted with the
situation presented hera Company X
clearly has knowledge of and
permits its employees to consume
alcohol on its premises and
corporately observes such con-
sumption. Under the
McGuiggan
standard quoted above, the danger
exists that Company X could, under
certain circumstances, be character-
ised as a "hos t" which "permitted"
the consumption of additional
alcohol by an already intoxicated
employee who thereafter causes
injury to a third person.
Finally, this situation would be
even further exacerbated should
the employee in question be under
the age of 21. In the
Langemann
case, the Court at least suggested
that a more lenient standard of
liability might be imposed upon a
host who provides alcohol to a
minor. In particular, the Court
observed that other jurisdictions
have considered unimportant the
question of minors' intoxication at
the time a social host provided an
alcoholic beverage and pointed to
cases wh i ch held t hat the
furnishing of alcohol to a minor
who later becomes intoxicated and
drives negligently causing injury is
sufficient to cause liability. In
addition, should Company X be
found to have delivered an alcoholic
beverage to a minor in violation of
the criminal law statutory pro-
vision, this too could be considered
evidence of its negligence.
Although Company X could still
argue that it did not actually furnish
the alcohol and therefore should
not be held accountable, it remains
unclear whether such a defence
would prevail.
In summary, serious issues are
raised regarding this 'happy hour'
practice. Certainly, its origin and
continuation is founded on the
no t i on t hat such gatherings
promote a level of conviviality and
goodwill among employees and
provide an oppo r t un i ty for
individuals at varying echelons
within a company to intermingle
socially. However, given the
potential risks, it may well behove
Company X to consider whether
the presence of alcohol is a
prerequisite for such social
interaction. The outlined category
of potential civil liability for a
" h o s t " may soon be applied here
by extension of our common law
negligence principles, particularly
as such
' a l coho l'
centred
entertainment is very much part of
the Irish ethos.
These legal developments in the
US relating to the purchase or
supply of alcohol have had quite an
effect. Bar Staff are very conscious
of the alcohol condition of patrons;
your personal friend (i.e. the social
host) who throws a party at his
home is very conscious of your
alcohol condition when you leave.
Food (or drink) for thought!
Editor's Note:
see
Jordan House
-v- Menow.
•
YOUR WILL
can help
Irish Wheelchair Association
For donations and furthorparticulars contact:
Miriam McNally
Irish Wheelchair Association
Áras Chuchul&'n, Blackheath Drive,
Clontarf. Dublin 3. Tel: 338241
IRISH
WHEELCHAIR
ASSOCIATION
2 8 4