White v. Sabatino

United States District Court for the District of Hawaii · Torts

TortsNegligenceVoluntary undertakingDram shop liabilityLimitation of liabilitysummary judgmentdesignated driverRestatement 324A

Facts

Sabatino, who was intoxicated at the time of a fatal automobile crash that killed Bournakel, had earlier been a passenger on the Alii Nui, a snorkeling cruise owned by 3090, Inc. The cruise included unlimited food and alcohol for a fixed ticket price, and the court found that 3090, Inc. sold and served an "all you can drink" package on the vessel. Wallach allegedly told Captain Dennis, regarding Sabatino, "Don't worry. We'll take care of her," though Wallach denied agreeing to be her designated driver, and the parties disputed whether he undertook any performance. After disembarking, Sabatino drove her own car and approximately 25 minutes later struck Bournakel's vehicle.

Issue

Whether Wallach was entitled to summary judgment because Hawaii law recognizes no negligence duty for a voluntary designated driver, or because no genuine issue of fact existed as to whether he undertook that role. Whether 3090, Inc. could limit liability despite selling and serving unlimited alcohol on the Alii Nui in violation of Maui County Liquor Rule § 08-101-69(a), and despite failing to show the negligence was outside its privity or knowledge.

Rule

A negligence claim requires duty, breach, causation, and damages. Under Hawaii law as applied here, a designated driver may owe a duty to third parties under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A when the person undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another necessary for the protection of a third person; however, the court declines to impose such liability based on a mere promise alone and requires some performance indicating the undertaking. A commercial alcohol supplier is negligent when it violates a liquor ordinance designed to prevent the kind of accident that occurred and the injured person is within the class the ordinance protects; once negligence is established in a limitation proceeding, the vessel owner must prove the negligent act was outside its privity or knowledge.

🔒

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 brewery tour in Portland, Maya Chen became heavily intoxicated. When the manager asked her friend Owen Price whether Maya would be safe, Owen replied, "I’ll make sure she gets home," but then immediately walked alone to his rideshare and left; Maya drove herself 15 minutes later and struck Nina Flores’s car.

In Nina’s negligence action against Owen, which is the strongest argument for Owen on duty?

Explanation. The opinion recognizes that a person who undertakes to act as a designated driver may owe a duty to third parties under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, but it declines to impose liability based on a mere promise alone. Some performance indicating entry into the undertaking is required, though the amount may be slight. Thus Owen’s best argument is that his statement, without any further conduct, did not create the duty. The court expressly rejected the broader propositions in the other choices. (Derived from White v. Sabatino (n.d.).)