The Supreme Court makes the right decision

Although it's impossible to feel anything other than sympathy for the plight of accident victim Zoe Childs, the Supreme Court of Canada made the correct decision in this case:

A young paraplegic who lost her mobility at the hands of a repeat drunk driver can't claim damages from the hosts of the New Year's party where he tanked up before getting behind the wheel.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously Friday that social hosts "as a general rule" bear no responsibility for their departed drunken guests. The high court upheld lower court rulings that found home owners — unlike bar owners — do not owe a duty of care to the public for their guests' alcohol consumption and subsequent behaviour.

"A person who accepts an invitation to attend a private party does not park his autonomy at the door," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

"The consumption of alcohol, and the assumption of the risks of impaired judgment, is in almost all cases a personal choice and an inherently personal activity."

Unlike tavern owners, said the court, social hosts can't monitor their guests' drinking, may be inebriated themselves, and aren't trained to detect whether departing guests are intoxicated.

This is an encouraging sign that the current Supreme Court recognizes that individuals are responsible for their own actions. Getting drunk is a conscious decision and driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is the responsibility of the individual, not that of other parties (except as noted in the article).