COMMENTARY: Should Drinking Companion Be Liable for Alcohol-Related Death?
By Kathy Tatone, Attorney at Law
March 20, 2008
Amanda Jax died of alcohol poisoning with a 0.46 blood alcohol level in October of 2007. She died the morning after her 21st birthday, a few hours after celebrating with friends at the Sidelines Bar & Grill in Mankato, Minnesota. Her parents filed the expected lawsuit against the bar where Jax drank, but surprisingly included Jax's friends who accompanied her on the binge. The suit claims that the friends bought her drink after drink during a two-hour period, took her to a friend's home where she passed out, carried her to bed, stayed with her while she was unconscious and vomiting and then left her alone to die. The lawsuit alleges that her friends are liable for creating a risk of harm to Jax by buying her alcohol after she was intoxicated and for leaving her alone in her apartment and failing to seek medical help.
This lawsuit has prompted angry comments by those who claim that Amanda herself is responsible for her own death. The commentators angrily question, ''Who forced her to drink?'' However, Amanda's mother states, ''At some point she was not able to make a rational decision about whether to drink more. Other people made that decision for her.'' These commentators are angry about the lawsuit, believing that it is causing emotional distress for Amanda's friends as well as possible damages. They suggest that Amanda's mother is using the legal system in a vindictive manner and feel the case should be dismissed.
A Novel Legal Theory
This suit is the first of its kind in the nation. Currently, the law does not impose any legal duty on a person to stop buying alcohol for a drinking companion nor to care for the drinking companion. The Jax case raises many questions, including what duty one friend has to another when buying them alcohol. Is there a duty to stop buying alcohol for a friend when it becomes obvious that they no longer can make decisions regarding their own safety? What if the friend purchasing the alcohol is also intoxicated and thus unable to make rational decisions or care for her intoxicated friend?
Liability for injuries caused by alcohol is imposed by statute in most states. ''Dram Shop'' laws make bars liable for serving alcohol to an intoxicated person. When they first were enacted, the public was angry that they charged bars with a duty to stop serving intoxicated patrons. Critics argued that the drinker had the personal responsibility to stop drinking before becoming intoxicated; however, legislatures across the county decided that the public needed protection from intoxicated drivers. Likewise, Social Host statutes impose liability on a host who provides alcohol to a minor who injures himself or others.
The Jax case tests whether personal injury law should expand liability for serving alcohol beyond the provisions of Dram Shop and Social Host laws. The case proposes two new types of liability: liability for buying alcohol for an intoxicated person and liability for failing to seek medical care for an unconscious, intoxicated person.
Did Amanda's Friends Have a Legal Duty to Care for Her?
Barry Feld, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School believes that the defendants might be liable in this case because Amanda and her friends had a ''special relationship.'' Legally speaking, a ''special relationship'' is one where a trusting connection exists between the plaintiff and the defendant. In such cases, the law obligates one party to care for the safety of the other.
Feld also believes Amanda's friends might be liable because they helped create her inability to care for herself. ''If you cause the person distress,'' Feld said, ''then you have a duty to alleviate it. You don't have to rescue someone you see drowning in a lake, but if you are the one that pushed them in you have to get them out safely.''
The Jaxes' lawyer states that Amanda's friends not only contributed to her intoxication but also left her in a location where no one else could rescue her. In order to prevail under Minnesota law, the Jaxes must prove not only that a special relationship existed between Amanda and her friends but also that the friends had control over Amanda after she became intoxicated and, finally, that they failed to provide for her safety.
Jax's friends agree they had a moral responsibility to take care of her, but disagree that they had a legal responsibility. Mark Solheim, the attorney for one of the defendants, told Minnesota Public Radio that his client had no legal obligation and that there is a good reason for that. ''Let's say I have you over for dinner and at some point I say to you, 'That's your third glass of wine, I have a duty to stop you.' Where does that end? How long would that duty last? What if you fell down and hit your head the next day? How long am I liable?'
A Jury Will Determine the Facts
In the Jax case, the jury first will need to determine whether Jax and her friends had a special relationship creating a duty of care, and if so, whether a reasonable person would have known that continuing to provide alcohol to Jax was putting her in danger. Regarding the question of reasonableness, the jury might consider whether it is unfair to require someone to recognize when a friend is intoxicated and to know when to stop serving them alcohol. Bartenders receive special training in this area and thus may be able to recognize signs that a person should stop drinking that are not evident to an untrained companion, particularly if that companion is intoxicated herself.
No one knows whether the friends drank as much as Amanda did, although it is hard to fathom that their blood alcohol content was as high as hers. If, at some point, however, the friends were themselves so intoxicated that they were incapable of rational choice, then they may have been unable to recognize Amanda's intoxication or determine how to care for her. The more intoxicated they were, the more responsibility the bar bears for serving five obviously intoxicated persons rather than one.
Next, the jury will decide what percentage of fault was Amanda's and what percentage of fault belonged to her friends. Amanda, a willing participant at first, is partially responsible for her tragic death, but after some point while providing alcohol, her friends share some of the fault. It is not likely that a jury will impose liability for providing Amanda her first few drinks, but they might do so for providing the 10th drink.
The jury also will determine whether a reasonable person would have known that leaving Amanda alone and not calling 911 was risking her life. Her friends assumed control over Amanda by taking her to an apartment. No one else could observe her condition and call 911 on her behalf. Although the friends exercised control, it may not be reasonable to assume they were aware of the danger. Given the frequency with which young people drink to excess, pass out and do not incur any damages beyond a hangover, a jury might find that a reasonable person would not know the signs or risk of alcohol poisoning. The jury will decide these fact questions after hearing the evidence.
Why Does This Case Cause Such Anger?
This case has generated a surprising amount of anger and disgust on the part of commentators who take the position that Amanda is solely responsible for her death. Some argue that allowing a jury to find Jax's friends liable minimizes Jax's own personal responsibility; however, everyone involved had the responsibility to act reasonably. We owe our fellow human beings a minimum standard of care and an obligation not to contribute to their self-destructive behavior.
Amanda's friends should not have continued to serve her after it became obvious that she was intoxicated. I am all for having a good time, but to encourage someone to drink after she is unable to recognize her limit is dangerous. Even if they were intoxicated, one of the five should have had the presence of mind to ask the others to stop providing alcohol.
The law has always prohibited injuring others, and we should not provide our friends with the tools to injure themselves. It is very likely that the jury will find that Amanda's own behavior created more of a risk of harm than did her friends' conduct; however, to argue that this issue should be dismissed now is to fail to recognize the partial culpability of her friends.
Kathy Tatone is an attorney based in Minneapolis. Her primary areas of practice include estate planning, elder law and personal injury.
Sources
''Amanda Jax's Family Files Suit Today Against Friends and Bar,'' KARE11.com
(Feb. 28, 2008)
Bob Collins, ''After Amanda,'' MinnesotaPublicRadio.org (Feb 28, 2008)
''Suit Names Friends, Mankato Bar In Woman's Death,'' WCCO.com (Feb. 28, 2008)
Paul Walsh and Heron Marquez Estrada, ''Family Sues Friends Who Partied With Jax,''
StarTribune.com (Feb. 28, 2008)
Opinions expressed here do not reflect those of TheAttorneyStore.com. No part of the materials available in TheAttorneyStore.com. may be copied, downloaded, stored in a retrieval system, further transmitted or otherwise reproduced, stored, disseminated, transferred or used, in any form or by any means. Distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited.
