MCPC - Macomb County Prevention Coalition, drug-free schools, ken lampar, macomb, michigan

return to articles

SC high court rules hosts can be liable for underage drinking

Associated Press

February 5. 2007

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Hosts who knowingly serve alcohol to minors can be liable for damages caused by the person who was drinking, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.

"While underage persons have full social and civil rights, we find the public policy of this State treats these individuals as lacking full adult capacity to make informed decisions concerning the ingestion of alcoholic beverages," the justices ruled in their decision, which created a rule that became effective Monday.
The ruling effectively ends the two cases brought before the high court.

One case from Richland County involved 19-year-old Justin Parks, who drank at an afternoon cookout and died after he crashed his vehicle several hours later. The court said the teen's blood-alcohol level was 0.291 percent. A judge dismissed a case brought by the teen's mother against the host of the party before it came to trial.

The second case involved 19-year-old Orin Feagin, who drank at his company Christmas party and crashed his car several hours afterward, killing himself and his passenger, Doris Ann Barnes. Barnes' family sued and won $750,000 against the company and Feagin's estate. That verdict was upheld by an appeal's court.
While it is illegal for to serve alcohol to people younger than 21, this is the first time state law has held adults acting as "social hosts" responsible for deaths or injuries resulting from knowingly serving alcohol to other adults under 21.

The new rule requires that hosts know they are serving someone under age 21 before they are held responsible. They cannot be held responsible if the drinker is over 21 or if they did not know the person drinking was underage, according to the ruling.

Monday's decision allows similar cases to go forward, but does not apply to past ones. Chief Justice Jean Toal agreed with changing the law, but wrote that she felt the two cases should have been sent back to lower courts for new trials.