 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Homan v. George4/30/1998
that because Kelle Homan is an alcoholic, her state of intoxication was not voluntary, but was due to appellees' providing her with alcohol knowing that she was unable to refrain, and that public policy supports recognizing her negligence claim against appellees.
Appellants have cited no authority, nor has this court found any, establishing that an alcoholic's initial decision to drink an alcoholic beverage should not bsviewed as a voluntary decision, that alcoholics should not be held responsible for the consequences of their voluntary consumption of alcoholic beverages and resulting intoxication, or that social hosts owe a greater duty of care to alcoholic guests.
Thus, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has not spoken directly on the issue, if this court were to find that the complaint sets forth a claim for relief based on a determination that a social host owes an alcoholic guest a duty to discontinue serving alcohol, order the guest to leave before the guest becomes intoxicated, or prevent the guest from driving away, it would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court's clear position that intoxicated persons are primarily responsible for the consequences of their intoxication.
For the above reasons, this court finds that appellants can prove no set of facts entitling them to relief. Therefore, appellants' first assignment of error is overruled.
In their second assignment of error, appellants allege that the trial court erred when it dismissed Brendyn Homan's claim for infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium.
The claims for loss of consortium and infliction of emotional distress are based on Kelle Homan's accident. Appellants have not established that appellees breached a legal duty they owed Brendyn Homan when they allegedly lied to Brendyn and otherwise prevented him and others from ensuring a ride home for Kelle Homan. Because this court has found that appellees were under no duty to prevent Kelle Homan from becoming intoxicated or from preventing her from driving away from their home while intoxicated, and that Kelle Homan's voluntary intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident, appellants' second assignment of error is overruled.
Appellants' two assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CLOSE, J., concurs.
TYACK, J., dissents.
DEAN STRAUSBAUGH, J., retired, of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting by assignment.
TYACK, Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
This case does not present a situation where Kelle Homan merely drank too much and was injured as a result. This case involves a situation where a known alcoholic was encouraged to drink and where efforts to rescue the alcoholic were thwarted by lies and deception. I believe that at least some of the financial responsibility for the losses and injury that resulted should be borne by the parties who encouraged Kelle Homan to drink and who concealed her whereabouts from her son, who was trying to help her.
The medical community generally views alcoholism as a disease and has done so for many years. If this disease model has any validity at all, then alcoholism is not completely an issue of morality, but is also an issue involving physiology. The alcoholic bears responsibility for her or his decision to consume alcohol on a given day. However, those who encourage or enable the alcoholic to consume also bear some responsibility.
Nothing in the pleadings indicates that Brendyn Homan did anything wrong on the night his mother was inj
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|