TheAgitator.com
The Long Arm of Liability
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled that a livery service is liable for a drunk driving fatality caused by one of its customers. Seems like a helluva’ stretch to get to negligence, here.
The Supreme Judicial Court found that Ultimate Livery Service Inc. of Boston and its driver, Richard Broderick, were negligent in a 2001 accident that killed an off-duty Boston police officer and left several other people with serious injuries.
The court said Broderick should not have dropped off a drunk passenger at a location where he would probably get into a car and drive.
Even here, I’d have a problem with the ruling. But it’s actually worse. The service didn’t drop the passenger off at a parking lot, or at his car. It dropped him off at another bar.
William Powers, along with five other men, had hired Ultimate to take them to a bachelor party on the night of Aug. 11, 2001. The driver picked them up in a 15-passenger van at a South Boston sports bar, took them to a strip club in Rhode Island, then drove them back to the sports bar. The men drank in both bars and during the ride to and from Rhode Island.
Powers, joined by two of the men, drove away after being dropped off and had a violent intersection collision with another car. The crash killed Sean Waters, an off-duty police officer who was a passenger in the other car, and passengers in both cars were injured.
Lawsuits were filed by Waters’s estate and the injured passengers, claiming that Ultimate and its driver were negligent in allowing Powers to leave the van at the Boston bar when they knew, or should have known, that Powers was probably going to drive a car while intoxicated.
Because the driver in this case helped Powers and his friends get drunk (he stopped so they could buy more liquor) the court could have just used this case to extend the state’s dram shop liability laws. That would have been bad enough. But the notion that a driving service is somehow supposed to discern the intent of its customers after they leave the vehicle is absurd. It also isn’t difficult to see how that level of liability might put a damper on these sorts of services, which would actually make the state’s roads more dangerous.
I also wonder what a taxi or limo driver who suspects an intoxicated passenger might drive at some point in the night is supposed to do, particularly if the customer demands to be let out. Drive them around until they’re sober? Drive them to a police station? Should they make possibly intoxicated passengers sign a waiver promising not to drive until they’re sober?
Thanks to David Boaz for the tip.
CORRECTION: The A.P. has posted a correction in the article linked above. The court ruled that this particular case should be heard by a jury, and overruled a lower court’s dismissal of the complaint. The ruling basically holds open the possibility that driving services could be found negligent in these sorts of cases. But barring a settlement, the Ultimate Livery Service case will now be tried before a jury.
This is crazy. The diver’s job is to do what he is getting payed to do which is to drive the customer to where he wants to go. Dram shop liability is stupid enough.
I sure hope they appeal this up higher.
What about a designated driver at a bar. I go to the bar, don’t drink take everyone home. One of the drunk people decides to go visit girlfriend, go to another bar, or whatever. It seems like I would be responsible if they did something destructive.
What happens if they go get a gun and shoot someone, am I an accessory to murder?
This could be taken so far out of whack it’s actually pretty frightening.
So now giving a drunk friend/relative a ride home could cost you your savings, home, etc?
Great precedent assholes!
What’s next? Installing Breathalyzers in the back seats of cabs and livery cars and if you blow over the limit then the doors lock automatically.
I’m surprised the strip club isn’t being sued as well for not providing entertainment that would have kept these gentlemen there another hour longer, thereby making the accident impossible.
Merely the state laying claim to the saying “I am my brother’s keeper.”
Too bad it never applies to the state.
This is all you need to know:
The state protecting the state.
The SJC did not find the livery company liable. The SJC reversed the summary judgment in favor of the livery company, finding that the case could go to trial. In other words, they found that the company *could* be liable, but not that it is liable in this case. That will be up to a jury to decide.
@Jerry #: Because this is a matter of state law and the SJC is Massachusetts’ higest court, there is nowhere to appeal, but see above for the court’s actual finding.
makes it tough to celebrate the repeal of prohibition when this is the price the govt can charge for exercising this freedom…
jerry S and ktc2,
I want to clarify that torts cases are VERY fact specific, and so, even if this ruling was as bad and as drastic as radley first thought, it would not in any way stand for the proposition that a driver is responsible for the drunken actions of their passengers whenever he drops them off. Again assuming radley’s first reading f the ruling, if you dropped someone off at home, it would still be very likely that the same court would decide that dropping someone off at home get syou off the hook b/c you had good reason to believe they were going to bed.
Not that I am defending even the actual ruling, cuz I’m not and I disagree with it, but tort rulings from appellate courts shouldn’t raise too much fear of slippery slopes since they are so amorphous and fact specific.
How many of the neo-prohibitionist MADDers were there to cheer that ruling?
Lighten up on this one. This was a reversal of a grant of a summary judgment motion. It doesn’t mean a whole lot.
The trial court held 2 things: 1) that there were no issues of material facts, and 2) that the moving party (the defendants here) are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Both those have to be true in order to succeed on summary judgment, and its usually not very easy to do since its pretty easy to show some disputed factual issues that could affect the outcome.
On appeal, the appellate court reviews the trial courts ruling. For purposes of this ruling, the court has to operate under a hypothetical in which all facts are resolved in favor of the non-moving party (the plaintiffs here). Given that generous assumption, the court then determines whether the moving party is still entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
(The appellate court can also review whether there are issues of material fact; its a higher standard of review though, but if the court finds that there are factual issues then it must reverse the summary judgment as well.)
I haven’t read the opinion, but I’m guessing that the appellate court found that if you assume all facts against the defendants, then they would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In other words, the court is saying that there are potentially some facts that could be proven that could lead to the defendants being found liable. Thats it really.
I can imagine that there are some very extreme sets of facts that could lead to the driving service being found liable; and if thats the case then the reversal of summary judgment is probably appropriate.
The plaintiffs still have to convince a jury and still have to contend with a trial court judge that considers their case bogus. Not an easy road ahead for them…
If one subscribes to the U.S. system of justice and jury trials, which about 99.999999999999999999999999% of those posting here do (guess who doesn’t!), then this should be a desirable outcome, assuming the trial is fair (by whose definition?).
Cynical,
I’d say it’s closer to 90%. There are about 20 regular commenters, and I’m not in the numerator.
Duly noted, Thomas. Good to know I’m not alone.
This is profoundly ridiculous.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
I can imagine that there are some very extreme sets of facts that could lead to the driving service being found liable; and if thats the case then the reversal of summary judgment is probably appropriate.
I haven’t read the original case, so I have no idea what particular facts were alleged; I don’t think a court is allowed to assume any facts that are more favorable to the plaintiff than the plaintiff’s own allegations, and I’m curious what facts the plaintiffs could have alleged that would justify an award.
In particular, a claim of negligence requires that a person either failed did something a reasonable person would not have done, or failed to do something a reasonable person would have done. I’m curious what the plaintiffs would have wanted the limo driver to actually do? Legally, I can’t see that he would have any authority to restrain or detain his passengers; for him to do so would likely be a criminal offense. Should he have dropped them off somewhere other than their requested destination? That probably wouldn’t be criminal, but I can’t imagine any reasonable driver taking that option.
So what should the driver have done?