The first one is the DEFF BET Social hosts Commercial vendors 1 Commercial

The first one is the deff bet social hosts commercial

This preview shows page 2 - 3 out of 6 pages.

The first one is the DEFF. BET. Social hosts & Commercial vendors: 1- Commercial vendors motivated by profit and ownership and expected to exercise greater supervision than social hosts. 2- Commercial vendors better suited for controlling customers. 3- Commercial vendors have money to control customers. 4- The legislature has even provided Commercial vendor with a way to immunize itself from civil liability, which shows there was intent to hold them liable; there is NO such protection for social hosts so legislature did NOT want social hosts to be liable to the same extent. The SECOND reason. Social host lability would have far- reaching consequences -Use reasoning from Burkhat for this, BUT note Burkhat involved intoxicated adult, the statute did not apply. THIRD, Statute (RCW 66.44.270(1), which states unlawful to give alcohol to person under 21; exception is in parents ‘presence) protects minors only from their OWN injuries because of their intoxication, NOT third parties (Hostetler, Mills). Affirm trial court’s dismissal of summary judgmen t. The Duty of Social hosts. (Duty of Care). Harper v. Herman Court of Minnesota -Harper was a guest on Herman’s private boat; they did not know each other prior to a boat trip on a lake. -Herman (64) was an experienced boat owner, while Harper (20) had experience with swimming in lakes and rivers. -Herman stopped at a recreation spot on lake; the water was quite shallow but the bottom of the lake wasn’t visible from the boat. -Without warning, Harper dove into the water (2-3 feet), hit the bottom, severed his spinal cord, and become a quadriplegic. - Harper claimed that Herman owed him a duty of care to warn him that the water too shallow for diving. - D prevailed at trial court level on Summary judgment (NO duty to warn). - Court of appeals, however, reversed (Herman assumed the duty when he let Harper on the boat and he knew water was “dangerou sly shallow”). - Does a boat owner who is a social host owe a duty of care to warn a guest on the boat that the water is too shallow for diving? No, a boat owner who is a social host does not owe a duty of care to warn a guest on the boat that the water is too shallow for diving. - Duty to act only arises when there is a special relationship; no such relationship exists here (special relationship found for common carriers), innkeepers and possessors of land, and those who have custody of another person who is “deprived of normal opportunities of self- protection”). - Being 20 years old, Harper wasn’t in custody, wasn’t vulnerable, and didn’t lack the ability to protect himself. On the other hand, -Superior knowledge in absence of a duty to provide protection does not result in a duty to act. HERE, Herman knew that water was “dangerously shallow” and this was not obvious to others on the boat; however, without a duty to act, he was not expected to provide a warning or protection.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 6 pages?

  • Spring '07
  • Spann
  • Law, Appellate court, Trial court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture