Vancouver Commercial Host Liability Lawyers understand that there is zero tolerance for drinking and driving and so should bar owning commercial hosts. People get injured in bar fights, can be treated overzealously by bouncers and even get hit in the parking lot by impaired former patrons leaving the premises. When this happens MacLean Personal Injury’s Vancouver Commercial Host Liability Lawyers weigh in for our injured clients.
Our Vancouver Commercial Host Liability Lawyers meet with you for free and we only get paid when you do.
Vancouver Commercial Host Liability Lawyers 1-877-602-9900
Commercial hosts have a duty of care to protect patrons from foreseeable harm as a result of knowledge of the particular individual’s circumstances and serving too much alcohol. Where there is “perverse incentive”, for example profit or commercial purposes there is greater duty of care owed. In the case Stewart v. Pettie (1995) the courts decided where a commercial host over serves an individual, the bar has a duty to ensure the individual has proper means of transportation and does not injure a third party. However, if circumstances exist leading the commercial host to believe they have met this duty, they will not be liable.
Vancouver Commercial Host Liability Lawyers Case Summary
The case Van Hove v. Boiselle involved a fatal car accident where the defendant was allegedly under the influence of alcohol at the time. The plaintiff sued the defendant driver for damages. ICBC argued that L.J.D. Properties Ltd (“L.J.D.”) the owner of the pub, should be partly responsible for over serving the defendant. Counsel for the pub brought a summary trial application (application before a trial with witnesses using affidavits only), where they argued that the claim against them should be dismissed. Mr. Justice Smith dismissed the pub owner’s application for a summary trial application, ruling that it would need to proceed to a full trial.
Vancouver Commercial Host Liability Lawyers Say Pub Owners Need To Be Watchful
 This action arises out of a fatal motor vehicle accident that was allegedly caused by a drunk driver. A third party claim alleges that L.J.D. Properties Ltd (“L.J.D.”) – the owner of a pub at which the defendant driver had been drinking –caused or contributed to the accident by over-serving the defendant and allowing her to leave the pub in an intoxicated state.
 The duty of care that commercial hosts who serve alcohol owe to the general public arises out of the profit making nature of the enterprise and the well-known dangers associated with the product. It is generally foreseeable that intoxicated patrons may, as a direct result of their intoxication, cause injury to others.
 The question then becomes one of the standard of care – whether, in the circumstances of a particular case, the commercial host did what was necessary to fulfill the duty. That inquiry includes the question of the whether the actual circumstances and means of injury were foreseeable.
 A plaintiff who proves breach of both the duty and the standard of care must then prove causation – whether the breaches actually caused the injury, which would not have occurred “but for” the negligent conduct of the defendant.
 One such fact in this case, on which I do not have sufficient evidence, is the level of Mr. Goll’s intoxication. If L.J.D.’s employees knew or ought to have known that he was as intoxicated as Ms. Boiselle, or nearly so, it may be open to a trial judge to find, on all of the evidence, that allowing her to leave the pub in his company did not meet the standard of care. It may also be open to a trial judge to find that her arrival home with an equally intoxicated person did not amount to a “safe” arrival within the meaning of the authorities and did not break the chain of causation.
 I therefore find myself unable to find the facts necessary to decide this matter on summary trial and the third party’s application must be dismissed.