PARENTAL LIABILITY AND UNDERAGE DRINKING
Were you surprised that the Illinois Supreme Court recently found that Deerfield parents who permitted underage drinking at their home were not civilly liable for the death of an 18-year-old who died in a car crash after leaving a party at their home? Sometimes, there is more to a story than meets the eye.
The case before the Illinois Supreme Court, Bell v. Hutsell, 2011 Ill. LEXIS 777 (2011), was a Lake County civil suit, which stemmed from the October 2006 death of Daniel Bell, who was killed when he drove his vehicle into a tree in Deerfield after leaving a party at the home of defendant-parents, the Hutsells. Daniel Bell's mother sued the defendant-parents on her deceased son's behalf. (According to the Chicago Tribune, in 2007, the Hutsells were convicted of misdemeanors related to underage drinking, endangering a child and obstruction of justice.) The Circuit Court of Lake County dismissed the civil action in its entirety. The Second District Appellate Court found the first three counts of plaintiff's complaint, which alleged a theory of voluntary undertaking by the defendant-parents, could stand. The defendant-parents appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Relying on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, specifically Sections 323, Negligent Performance of Undertaking to Render Services, and 324A, Liability to Third Person for Negligent Performance of Undertaking, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the facts alleged in plaintiff's complaint failed to show that the defendant-parents had undertaken a duty under which they could be held liable for negligence.
The facts set forth in plaintiff's complaint alleged that defendant-parents intended to prohibit underage drinking at the party at their house and conveyed this to their son, Jonathon; however, there was no claim that the defendant-parents' intent was communicated to any of the other underage party-goers. Further, although it was alleged that the defendant-parents were present in the home when the party was taking place, the complaint failed to demonstrate that the defendant-parents took any affirmative steps to carry out their expressed intention to prohibit underage drinking.
To prevail in a negligence action, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, breached that duty, and that defendant's breach was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. In a case alleging the voluntary undertaking theory of liability, the duty of care to be imposed upon a defendant is limited to the extent of the undertaking by the defendant. 2011 Ill. LEXIS 777, *8.
What went wrong here? To prevail on the theory of voluntary undertaking, there must have been some affirmative action taken to attempt to stop the possession and consumption of alcohol at the home, as well as an allegation that plaintiff's decedent changed position, relied upon, or was put at an increased risk of harm or in a worse position because of defendant-parents' statement to their son not to drink. Conversely, Plaintiff's complaint alleged no affirmative action by the defendant-parents: there was no allegation that they attempted to confiscate alcoholic beverages in the possession of underage partygoers, asked offenders to leave, or called a halt to the party. Id. at *20.
See Jeffery J. Kroll live on "Good Day Chicago" with Jan Jeffcoat and David Novarro in 2010, discussing the possible legal consequences for adults who provide alcohol to underage drinkers.
