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

lawsuitplaintiffliabilitystatutesummary judgment
defendantliabilityappealtrialsummary judgment

Related Cases

Pendergrast v. Aiken, 293 N.C. 201, 236 S.E.2d 787
View Case »
Suvada v. White Motor Co., 32 Ill.2d 612, 210 N.E.2d 182, 2 UCC Rep.Serv. 762
View Case »
McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 817 F.3d 1170, 2016 A.M.C. 1579, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,816, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3443, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3139
View Case »
Chase v. Sabin, 445 Mich. 190, 516 N.W.2d 60
View Case »
Estate of Moses ex rel. Moses v. Southwestern Virginia Transit Management Co., Inc., 273 Va. 672, 643 S.E.2d 156
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ennabe v. Manosa, 58 Cal.4th 697, 319 P.3d 201, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 440, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1870, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2176

Facts

On April 27, 2007, Jessica Manosa hosted a party at a rental residence owned by her parents, charging an entrance fee to guests. The party attracted between 40 and 60 attendees, most of whom were underage. Manosa and her friends provided alcohol for the party, and guests were allowed to drink freely. One of the attendees, Thomas Garcia, who was visibly intoxicated, later ran over and killed Andrew Ennabe, another guest, after being escorted out for inappropriate behavior. The parents of Ennabe filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Manosa and her parents, claiming liability under California's alcohol service laws.

On the evening of April 27, 2007, defendant Jessica Manosa (Manosa) hosted a party at a vacant rental residence owned by her parents, defendants Carlos and Mary Manosa, without their consent. The party was publicized by word of mouth, telephone, and text messaging, resulting in an attendance of between 40 and 60 people. The vast majority of attendees were, like Manosa, under 21 years of age.

Issue

Whether Jessica Manosa, as a social host, can be held liable for the wrongful death of Andrew Ennabe under California's alcohol service laws, specifically regarding the sale of alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor.

We consider in this case whether defendant Jessica Manosa can be liable under the foregoing exception when, at her party, an underage, intoxicated guest who was charged a fee to enter consumed alcoholic beverages defendant supplied and subsequently, in a drunken state, killed someone in an automobile accident.

Rule

California's Business and Professions Code section 25602.1 allows for liability against any person who sells or causes to be sold alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated minor, regardless of whether the seller is licensed.

In addition to permitting liability in some circumstances for the provision of alcohol (i.e., the sale, furnishing or giving away of alcoholic beverages) by those licensed to sell alcohol (or who are required to be licensed), section 25602.1 also states that 'any other person' who sells alcoholic beverages (or causes them to be sold) to an obviously intoxicated minor loses his or her civil immunity and can be liable for resulting injuries or death.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Manosa's actions constituted a sale of alcohol under section 25602.1. It found that by charging an entrance fee, Manosa effectively sold alcohol to her guests, including the intoxicated minor, thus potentially exposing her to liability. The court emphasized that the statute's language applies to non-commercial hosts and that the charging of an entrance fee could be interpreted as a sale.

Having reached this decision, we need not, and thus do not, address the further question whether defendant might also be liable on the ground she was a person who was required to be licensed who furnished alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Manosa, allowing the wrongful death claim to proceed based on the potential liability for selling alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor.

Because the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in defendant's favor, we reverse.

Who won?

The plaintiffs (parents of Andrew Ennabe) prevailed in the Supreme Court, as the court found that there was a triable issue of fact regarding Manosa's liability under the alcohol service laws.

The Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Manosa, allowing the wrongful death claim to proceed based on the potential liability for selling alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor.

You must be