Stewart v. Pettie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stewart v. Pettie, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 131 is leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the duty of care owed by commercial establishments serving liquor.
Contents |
[edit] Background
In December of 1985, two couples, Gillian and Keith Stewart and Stuart and Shelley Pettie, went to a dinner theatre in Edmonton. At dinner Stuart was served a number of rum-and-cokes but showed no signs of intoxication. Afterwards the four discussed who should drive and Stuart insisted he was fit to drive, and so they agreed to let him drive. On the way back Stuart got them in an accident. Among the injuries, Gillian was rendered quadriplegic.
At trial the judge found that the dinner theatre could not have been aware of Stuart's degree of intoxication and did not impose liability based solely on the number of drinks served. On appeal the Court of Appeal overturned the decision and allocated 10% liability to the theatre. The court held that the theatre breached its duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure patrons were not served enough alcohol that they would be a danger and its duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that intoxicated patrons did not harm themselves or others.
[edit] Opinion of the Court
Justice Major, writing for the unanimous court, held that the theatre was not liable. Major examined the previous cases of Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd. and Jordan House Ltd. v. Menow, finding that they confirmed the existence of a duty to third parties who are reasonably expected to pose a risk. Here, Major found that it was foreseeable that the theatre owed a duty of care to the two couples.
A breach of the duty is only where there was a foreseeable risk of harm. Here, there was no reasonable way that the theatre could foresee that Stuart would be the one to drive. The theatre was correct in assuming that Stuart would not be the one to drive. Nevertheless, Major confirmed that the theatre must monitor the patron's alcohol consumption based on the amount served and not solely on the patron's visible condition.
