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?

I’d say it’s closer to 90%. There are about 20 regular commenters, and I’m not in the numerator.

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…

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.

@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.

The crash killed Sean Waters, an off-duty police officer

The state protecting the state.

Too bad it never applies to the state.

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.

Great precedent assholes!

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.