Wakulich v. Mraz

Illinois Appellate Court · Torts

Tortssocial host liabilityvoluntary undertakingwrongful deathsurvival actionssocial hostDramshop Actpreemption

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that 16-year-old Elizabeth Wakulich was at Dennis Mraz's home, where Michael and Brian Mraz provided her with a quart of Goldschlager and induced her to drink it through goading, social pressure, and an offer of money. After she drank the alcohol, she lost consciousness, vomited profusely, and made gurgling sounds. Michael and Brian allegedly moved her to a downstairs room, later removed her vomit-soaked blouse, placed a pillow under her head to prevent aspiration, and prevented others from calling 911 or seeking medical help. Dennis later ordered Michael and Brian to remove her from the home, and she was eventually taken to a hospital and pronounced dead.

Issue

Whether plaintiff stated a cause of action against defendants based on inducing a minor to drink alcohol despite Illinois preemption of alcohol-related liability, and whether plaintiff separately stated a claim that Michael and Brian were negligent in performing a voluntary undertaking to care for decedent after she became unconscious. The case also raised whether the Survival Act counts could be amended on remand to cure the administrator defect.

Rule

Under Charles v. Seigfried, the Illinois General Assembly has preempted the entire field of alcohol-related liability, and courts may not create common-law social host liability for furnishing alcohol, including to minors. However, one who voluntarily undertakes to render services to another is liable for bodily harm caused by failure to perform that undertaking with due care, and social-host status does not insulate a defendant from liability for negligent performance of such an independent undertaking.

🔒

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.

At a backyard party in Peoria, 22-year-old Nolan Pierce served vodka to 17-year-old Ava Romero and urged her to keep drinking so she would not seem childish in front of friends. Ava later wandered away, fell into a drainage ditch, and suffered fatal injuries. Her estate sues Nolan in common-law negligence for furnishing alcohol to a minor and encouraging her to drink.

How should the court rule on Nolan's motion to dismiss the negligence claim?

Explanation. The majority held that Illinois has preempted the entire field of alcohol-related liability, including claims against social hosts who provide alcohol to adults, underage persons, or minors. A negligence theory based on furnishing alcohol or encouraging consumption is therefore barred. The claim here arises directly from service and encouragement of drinking, so it should be dismissed. (Derived from Wakulich v. Mraz (n.d.).)