Kelly v. Gwinnel

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1984 · Torts

TortsNegligenceSocial host liabilityDutyProximate causesocial host liabilitynegligenceduty

Facts

Donald Gwinnell spent one to two hours at Joseph and Catherine Zak's home after driving Zak home, and according to the participants consumed two or three scotches there before driving away. About twenty-five minutes later, Gwinnell was involved in a head-on collision with plaintiff Marie Kelly, seriously injuring her. A post-accident blood test showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.286 percent, and plaintiff's expert concluded Gwinnell had consumed the equivalent of thirteen drinks and must have shown unmistakable signs of intoxication while at the Zak residence. Viewing the summary-judgment record in plaintiff's favor, the court assumed the Zaks continued to serve Gwinnell after he was visibly intoxicated and knew he would be driving home.

Issue

Whether a social host who directly serves alcohol to an adult guest at home may be liable to a third person injured by the guest's subsequent drunken driving when the host served the guest beyond visible intoxication and knew the guest would drive.

Rule

A social host who directly serves liquor to an adult social guest is liable to a third party for injuries caused by the guest's negligent operation of a motor vehicle when the host knows the guest is intoxicated, knows the guest will thereafter operate a motor vehicle, and the guest's negligence is caused by that intoxication. The decision applies prospectively, except to the parties in this case.

🔒

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 Newark, Elena Ruiz invited her neighbor, Thomas Pike, to her townhouse for drinks after work. Elena personally mixed and handed Thomas several bourbons, saw that he was slurring his words and stumbling, and knew he was about to drive himself home to Jersey City; twenty minutes later, Thomas crossed the center line and injured Priya Nanda.

If Priya sues Elena for negligence, which is the strongest argument that Elena owed Priya a duty under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority imposed a common-law negligence duty on a social host who directly serves liquor to an adult guest, knows the guest is intoxicated, and knows the guest will shortly operate a motor vehicle, when the guest's intoxication causes negligent driving that injures a third party. Profit and a statute are not required, and liability is not automatic for all hosts.