Grad parties legal minefield

It’s that time of year again: the season of high-school graduations and graduation parties. The kids think school’s out forever, and the parents know that school has not even begun yet. It’s also time for grinches like me to remind adults, parents in particular, that hosting a graduation party involving alcohol at a house or a farm or anywhere involves the potential for significant liability no matter whether alcohol is being served or whether the grads bring alcohol with them and consume it on site.

It is important to understand that the parental or adult duty of care for minors expected by law cannot be mitigated in any way by permission slips, verbal permission, even school or school-district policies that require “adequate adult supervision.”

It is also worth knowing that most homeowner policies have limits of $1 million. Any catastrophic injury involving young people will far exceed that amount.

By hosting a drinking party, adults are risking everything.

Liability, substantiated by case law, has a lengthy reach, and there are several kinds of liability that even the best-intentioned adults cannot avoid if alcohol is being served to or consumed by minors at an adult-sanctioned party.

The legal drinking age in B.C. is 19.

Anyone under 19 is a minor. In B.C., liquor is defined as beer, wine or spirits, or any other product intended for human consumption that contains more than one per cent alcohol by volume. Providing alcohol to underage teens could result in charges under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act and can attract potential civil liability.

The first and most common kind of liability, social-host liability, is where the host is liable for supplying alcohol to minors who subsequently injure themselves or others on the host’s property or after leaving.

Then there is occupier’s liability, which covers any alcohol-related injuries that occur on the hostowned property that can result from the condition of the property or the activities of guests on the premises.

Finally, there are vehicle claims, where parents can be held indirectly liable for intoxicated drivers.

The British Columbia Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that parents are responsible if their children’s party guests drink too much and drive.

One of the most often quoted is a case that involved a backyard party at the home of Mr. and Mrs. V at a small town in the north Okanagan Valley.

A teenage guest at the party drank too much, then drove off the road, seriously injured another teenage boy.

The court’s decision means the Vs were liable for part of the $2.5 million awarded to the teenager, who suffered brain damage in the 1998 crash.

The Vs “created a dangerous situation by permitting minors to drink at their home and drive from it,” B.C. Supreme Court Justice Gerald Coultas wrote in a 41-page judgment.

Occupier’s liability can be incurred by adults who turn a blind eye to underage drinking on their premises or property.

In this case, C vs. J, the adult Js were held accountable for a bridge that connected their home on an island to the mainland.

They allowed their children to host a party in which the partygoers brought and consumed alcohol.

The bridge was the location for much of the party, and, tragically, an intoxicated minor fell off the bridge and was rendered paraplegic.

The court held the Js negligent as occupiers because the bridge was deemed unsafe for gatherings of inebriated teenagers.

A third kind of liability involves responsibility for activities on the premises or property. This time, in the case of M vs. F, a significant settlement was reached in a case where the defendant allowed his son to host a bush party on his farm.

A significant amount of alcohol was consumed at the party, and subsequently the plaintiff was rendered quadriplegic after a fight erupted during the party.

There had been numerous parties resulting in problems in the past, and the plaintiff alleged that the occupier should not have allowed any parties on his property because he knew about significant risks for participants.

Courts have almost always held that it is a parent’s or adult’s duty to protect minors from not only their own lack of experience but from the potential dangers and heightened risk of injury to themselves and others, especially where the consumption of alcohol is part of the story.

— Geoff Johnson is a former superintendent of schools. He gratefully acknowledges the generous assistance provided by Bill Dick of the law firm Murphy Battista LLP in researching this column.