Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesnegligenceliabilityappealmotionduty of care
appealduty of care

Related Cases

Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc., Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901
View Case »
McQuitty v. Spangler, 410 Md. 1, 976 A.2d 1020
View Case »
Tait v. Wahl, 97 Wash.App. 765, 987 P.2d 127
View Case »
Matthews v. Yoplait USA, Inc., 352 Ga.App. 591, 835 S.E.2d 393, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 20,746
View Case »
Peterson v. Martyn, Not Reported in N.E. Rptr., 2018 WL 3559941, 2018-Ohio-2905
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ah Mook Sang v. Clark, 130 Hawai‘i 282, 308 P.3d 911

Facts

On July 29, 2009, fifteen-year-old Makamae attended a party hosted by twenty-five-year-old Michael Clark, where she was served large amounts of hard liquor. After becoming visibly ill and unconscious, neither Michael nor his mother, Denise, who was present, rendered aid. The next morning, Michael loaded Makamae's unconscious body into a friend's car, and she was later pronounced dead from acute alcohol intoxication. Her parents filed a negligence action against the Clarks, seeking damages for wrongful death and emotional distress.

Makamae was allegedly served and encouraged to drink large amounts of hard liquor. At some point during the night, she allegedly began to feel ill and then became unconscious, yet neither Michael nor his mother Denise Clark, with whom he lived and who was present on the property at the time, rendered or summoned any aid.

Issue

Whether a social host who invites a minor onto their property and serves alcohol owes a duty of care to prevent foreseeable injuries resulting from alcohol consumption and to render aid if injuries occur.

This appeal requires us to consider whether a social host who invites a minor onto his or her property and then directly serves alcohol to the minor owes a duty of care to prevent foreseeable injuries resulting from consumption of the alcohol, or to render or summon aid if injuries have occurred, while the minor remains on the property as a guest.

Rule

A social host who serves alcohol to a minor owes a duty of care to the minor while they are a guest on the property, particularly when the host places the minor in a position of peril and fails to act to prevent foreseeable harm or to aid the minor if harm occurs.

We therefore hold that a social host in the circumstances presented in this case owes a duty of care to a minor when the host has placed the minor in a position of peril and does not act to prevent foreseeable harm to the minor that may thereby result, and when the host does not act to aid the minor in the event that harm has occurred.

Analysis

The court determined that the Clarks, as social hosts, had a special relationship with Makamae, which imposed a duty of reasonable care. The court noted that the Clarks' actions of providing alcohol and failing to assist Makamae when she became ill created a foreseeable risk of harm. The court distinguished this case from previous rulings on social host liability, emphasizing that the unique facts warranted a duty of care.

As alleged, this case involves a fifteen-year-old minor who was a social guest at a party hosted by a twenty-five-year-old adult; the host knew minors were present and knowingly served them alcoholic beverages and encouraged them to drink. Further, when the guest became visibly sick due to consumption of the alcohol, the host made no attempt to render or summon aid.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order and judgment, allowing the Ah Mook Sangs' claims to proceed based on the established duty of care owed by the Clarks to Makamae.

We therefore vacate the order and judgment of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings in this case.

Who won?

The Ah Mook Sangs prevailed in the appeal as the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, allowing their negligence claims to proceed against the Clarks.

The Ah Mook Sangs also argued that, according to this court's opinion in Blair v. Ing, whether one owes a legal duty to another must be decided on a case-by-case basis and should be determined by consideration of several different factors.

You must be