Reynolds v. Hicks

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc · 1998 · Torts

TortsNegligenceSocial host liabilityDutyAlcohol liabilitysocial hostminoralcohol

Facts

Jamie and Anna Hicks hosted their wedding reception, where wine, champagne, and drinks from a hosted bar were available. Their underage nephew, Steven Hicks, consumed alcohol at the reception, later drove away around midnight, and at about 1:00 a.m. collided with Timothy Reynolds; both drivers registered blood alcohol levels of .17 percent. Plaintiffs alleged Jamie and Anna Hicks were negligent in serving alcohol to Steven knowing or having reason to know he was under 21 and/or became intoxicated. The claim against the social hosts was dismissed on summary judgment.

Issue

Whether a social host who furnishes alcohol to a minor owes a duty of care to third persons injured by the intoxicated minor. More specifically, whether RCW 66.44.270 creates such a duty in favor of injured third parties.

Rule

To derive a duty of care from a statute, Washington applies Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286, which requires, among other things, that the injured person be within the class the statute was enacted to protect. RCW 66.44.270 protects minors from their own alcohol-related injuries, not third persons injured by intoxicated minors; therefore, a social host who furnishes alcohol to a minor owes no duty to such third persons under that statute.

🔒

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, Nora and Eli Benton hosted a backyard engagement party at their home. Their 20-year-old cousin, Lucas Orr, drank beer there, drove away, and later struck Dana Pike, a pedestrian crossing a street several miles away.

Dana sues Nora and Eli for negligence, alleging they unlawfully furnished alcohol to Lucas while he was under 21. Under the governing Washington rule, are Nora and Eli most likely to owe Dana a duty based on that statute?

Explanation. Washington applies Restatement § 286 to determine whether a statute defines a duty. The injured plaintiff must be within the class the statute was enacted to protect. The majority held that the statute prohibiting furnishing liquor to minors protects minors from their own alcohol-related injuries, not third persons injured by intoxicated minors. Therefore, a social host owes no duty to Dana on these facts.