Estate of Templeton v. Daffern

Washington Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligenceSocial host liabilityAlcohol liabilityDutysocial hostminoralcohol

Facts

A teenage drinking party occurred at a cabin on property owned by Stan and Jean Daffern, where their son Dan and his roommate Mike Vaardahl lived. Travis Templeton, age 16, attended and drank alcohol that partygoers had brought from elsewhere; it was uncontroverted that there was no alcohol in the cabin earlier that evening, and neither Stan nor Jean furnished alcohol to Travis. Although the parties disputed whether Stan and Jean knew of the party and whether Dan stopped it or joined it, the court viewed the facts in plaintiffs' favor and assumed defendants permitted the party to continue. Travis later drove away in a borrowed car, crashed into a tree, and was killed.

Issue

Does a social host who does not furnish alcohol to a minor, but permits the minor to consume alcohol obtained elsewhere on the host's premises, owe the minor a common law duty of reasonable care? Relatedly, can plaintiffs prevail based solely on a statutory duty not to permit minors to consume alcohol on the premises?

Rule

In Washington, although RCW 66.44.270(1) imposes a statutory duty not to permit a minor to consume liquor on one's premises or premises under one's control, RCW 5.40.050 makes breach of such a statute only evidence of negligence, not negligence per se. Therefore, liability requires an underlying common law duty of reasonable care, and a social host has such a common law duty to a minor only when the host knowingly furnishes the alcohol, not when the host merely permits consumption of alcohol the minor obtained elsewhere.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Spokane, 19-year-old Eli Gomez attended a graduation party at Nora Whitman's house. Nora saw Eli drinking vodka that he had brought in a backpack from another location, told him to stay in the backyard, and did not take the bottle away; Eli later fell from a retaining wall and suffered serious injuries.

If Eli sues Nora for negligence in Washington, which is the strongest argument for Nora on the duty issue?

Explanation. The majority held that a social host owes no common law duty of reasonable care to a minor when the host did not furnish the alcohol but only permitted the minor to consume alcohol obtained elsewhere on the premises. Washington recognizes a statutory duty not to permit such consumption, but under RCW 5.40.050 breach of that statute is only evidence of negligence and is not sufficient by itself absent an underlying common law duty. (Derived from Estate of Templeton v. Daffern (n.d.).)