Law Office Report - Fall 2008
Are Homeowners Liable to Persons
Injured by an Underage Drinker?
The answer to that question depends on whether the homeowners provided the alcohol to the underage drinker. If they did, then the homeowners are liable – if they didn’t, then the homeowners are not liable if the underage drinker injures other persons, for example, in a traffic accident.
Recently the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Nichols v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 2008 WI 20, that when the homeowners’ only roles were as the owners of the property, but did not provide the alcohol and where an underage drinker from that party caused injuries to others in a car accident, the homeowners were not liable even though they were aware that drinking was going on at that party.
There is no question that underage drinking is a serious problem in the United States. The U.S. Surgeon General in a 2007 Report stated that the highest prevalence of alcohol dependency in the U.S. population is among 18-20 year olds who typically began drinking years earlier. The underage drinking epidemic has hit Wisconsin, which has the highest rate of underage drinking. In 2005, underage drinking cost Wisconsin citizens $1.2 billion. (June 2008, Wisconsin Lawyer.)
Despite the underage drinking epidemic and the cost to Wisconsin citizens, the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not extend liability under the facts of the Nichols case to the homeowners. In that case, the Niesens were the homeowners. An underage drinking party was occurring at their home, although the Niesens were not present. The Niesens did not provide any of the alcohol. When an underage drinker left the party at the Niesens home, she drove her car striking the Nichols’ vehicle and injuring the Nichols, some very seriously. The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not extend liability under the facts of that case to the Niesens. The high court stated:
“... we hold that, based on public policy grounds, a claim for common-law negligence cannot be maintained against social hosts, such as the Niesens, who allegedly were aware that minors on their property were consuming alcohol, but who did not provide the alcohol, when an underage guest later allegedly caused an alcohol-related car accident. To hold otherwise would be a significant extension of common-law liability. If that is to occur, in this instance, it should be done by the legislature, not by this court.”
The circuit court had dismissed the Nichols’ complaint against the Niesens, which the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court then reversed the Court of Appeals.
In their complaint, the Nichols alleged that “the Niesens were aware that the minors on their property were consuming alcohol.” The Nichols contended that the Niesens “had a duty to supervise and monitor the activities on their property” and that they were negligent because they failed to do so. The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed. It stated that “even if all the elements for a claim of negligence are proved, or liability for negligent conduct is assumed by the court, the court nonetheless may preclude liability based on public factors.”