SJC rules that teens who host underage drinking parties but don’t supply alcohol can’t be held liable in civil lawsuits

By John R. Ellement, Globe Staff

The state’s highest court ruled today that teenagers who host underage drinking parties but don’t supply the alcohol can’t be held liable in a civil lawsuit if a partygoer is injured.

“We are asked to enlarge the scope of social host liability under our common law by extending a duty of care to an underage host who does not supply alcohol to underage guests, but provides a location where they are permitted to consume it,’’ Justice Fernande R.V. Duffly wrote for the Supreme Judicial Court.

“We decline to do so, and reaffirm that liability attaches only where a social host either serves alcohol or exercises effective control over the supply of alcohol,’’ Duffly wrote.

While the ruling was unanimous, Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland and Justices Ralph Gants and Margot Botsford issued concurring opinions in which they agreed with the conclusion but disagreed with the reasoning used by Duffly.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by the family of Rachel Juliano, who was left permanently brain damaged when the car being driven by her then-boyfriend, Christopher Dunbar, crashed in 2007. Dunbar, according to court records, had attended a party at the Wrentham home of Jessica Simpson, who was then 19 years old.

Dunbar drank alcohol at Simpson’s house and then drove off with Juliano, then his 15-year-old girlfriend. The car crashed, and Juliano was seriously injured, according to court records.

Juliano and her family wanted to hold Jessica Simpson civilly liable for hosting the underage drinking party, relying heavily on state law that makes it a crime for a host to provide alcohol to anyone under the age of 21. Simpson did not provide the alcohol consumed by Dunbar.

Dunbar purchased a 30-pack of Bud Light and a liter of peach Bacardi rum and brought them to party, according to court record. He is reported to have consumed seven Bud Light beers and some mixed drinks, the records show.

The SJC said expanding civil law in the way the Julianos wanted would be too confusing for judges and juries to sort out, and the court noted there is no national agreement on the issue.

“The plaintiffs make a compelling argument that underage drinking and driving is a persistent and widespread societal problem. The Legislature’s decision to deter and punish those who facilitate such conduct by the imposition of jail sentences and financial penalties, along with the stigma of a permanent criminal record, lends support to that argument,’’ Duffly wrote.

“However, the public policy concerns raised in past social host cases remain relevant to our determination of the appropriate scope of common-law tort liability. We have not been given sufficient reason to significantly amend our tort law in the face of sound reasons for maintaining its current status,’’ she wrote.