ON April 27, 2007, Jessica Manosa hosted a party at a vacant residence owned by her parents. Manosa and most of the attendees of the party were under 21 years of age. She and some friends pooled money together to buy alcohol for the party, then charged people $3 to $5 to enter the party. Two of the attendees of the party were Thomas Garcia and Andrew Ennabe. Both were visibly intoxicated when they arrived at the party, and continued to drink alchohol once they were inside. Because Garcia began causing trouble at the party, Ennabe and some other guests escorted him outside. Once they were outside, Garcia ran over Ennabe with his car, ultimately killing him. Ennabe’s parents filed a wrongful death suit against Manosa and her parents. The trial court granted summary judgement for the defendants, concluding that they could not be held liable for Ennabe’s death. The court of appeal affirmed.
Reversed by Supreme Court. IN general, California law states that a person who furnished alcoholic beverages to another person cannot be held liable for any damages resulting from that person’s intoxication. However, an exception to this general rule applies if a plaintiff can establish that a defendant provided alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor, and that those actions resulted in the plaintiff’s injury or death. In these cases, the plaintiff can establish the alcohol provider’s liability if the provider was unlicensed to sell alcohol, but sold alcohol to the minor anyway.
Here, Garcia was underage, obviously intoxicated, and paid money to enter Manosa’s party. Manosa was not licensed to sell alcohol, and the alcohol Garcia consule while at her party contributed to Ennabe’s eventual death. Based on these facts, the exception to California’s general rule of immunity for social hosts applied, and Manosa could be held liable for what happened to Ennabe. Thus, the trial court should not have granted summary judgment.
Where injuries are proximately caused by excess alcohol consumption, our Legislature has carefully balanced the interests involved and settled on a rule generally precluding liability for those who provide alcoholic beverages, on the ground that “the consumption of alcoholic beverages rather than the serving of alcoholic beverages [is] the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.” (§ 25602, subd. (c).) Specifically addressing the potential liability of social hosts, the Legislature has provided that “no social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person may be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.” (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (c).)
But the Legislature has also established some narrow exceptions to this broad civil immunity, one of which is potentially applicable here: liability may attach because plaintiff alleges facts suggesting that defendant Manosa was a “person who [sold], or cause[d] to be sold, any alcoholic beverage, to any obviously intoxicated minor.” (§ 25602.1.) A “sale” of alcohol, in turn, is defined as “any transaction” for “any consideration.” (§ 23025.) Because the facts, read in a light most favorable to plaintiffs (Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 764), support the conclusion Manosa is a person who sold alcoholic beverages to Garcia, a minor who was obviously intoxicated, and Garcia’s intoxication was the proximate cause of Andrew Ennabe’s death, she is potentially liable under section 25602.1, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in defendant’s favor.
On the evening of April 27, 2007, defendant Jessica Manosa hosted a party at a vacant rental residence owned by her parents without their consent. The party was publicized by word of mouth, telephone, and text messaging, resulting in an attendance of between 40 and 60 people. The vast majority of attendees were, like Manosa, under 21 years of age.
Manosa personally provided $60 for the purchase of rum, tequila, and beer. She also provided cups and cranberry juice, but nothing else. Two of Manosa’s friends also provided money to buy alcohol. The beer was placed in a refrigerator in the kitchen, and the tequila and “jungle juice” (a mixture of rum and fruit juice) were placed outside on a table.
Guests began to arrive at around 9pm, entering through a side gate in the yard. Manosa asked her friend, Todd Brown, to “stand by the side gate to kind of control the people that came in and if he didn’t know them, then charge them some money to get into the party.” Brown then served as a “bouncer,” standing at the gate and charging uninvited guests an admission fee of $3 to $5 per person. Once inside, partygoers enjoyed music played by a disc jockey Manosa had hired and could help themselves to the beer, tequila, and jungle juice.
Sometime before midnight, Andrew Ennabe, Manosa’s friend and an invited guest, arrived to the party. Thomas Garcia, who had not been invited and did not know Manosa, came to the party and paid $20 so that he and three or four of his friends could enter. Brown, told him alcoholic beverages were available if he wanted them. Ennabe and Garcia, both under 21 years of age, were visibly intoxicated on arrival. Garcia in particular exhibited slurred speech and impaired faculties. By his own reckoning, he had consumed at least four shots of whiskey before arriving and other guests saw him drink at Manosa’s party.
During the party Garcia became rowdy, aggressive, and obnoxious. He made obscene and vaguely threatening comments to female guests, and either he or a friend dropped his pants. Garcia was eventually asked to leave for his inappropriate behavior. Ennabe and some other guests escorted Garcia and his friends off the premises and ultimately to their car. One of Garcia’s friends spit on Ennabe, prompting Ennabe to chase him into the street. Garcia, who by this time was driving away, ran over Ennabe, severely injuring him. Ennabe later died from his injuries.
Plaintiffs Faiez and Christina Ennabe, on behalf of themselves and the estate of their son, filed a wrongful death action against defendant Manosa and her parents. Plaintiffs asserted three causes of action: general negligence, premises liability, and liability under section 25602.1 which permits liability for certain persons who serve alcohol to obviously intoxicated minors.
Plaintiffs countered that by charging an entrance fee, Manosa had “sold” alcohol to party guests and was thus not entitled to civil immunity. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all causes of action and, in the alternative, also granted the motion for summary adjudication. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
We granted plaintiffs’ petition for review.
***
The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost. Atty. Sayas’ Law Office is located at 500 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 980, Glendale, CA 91203. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit www.joesayaslaw.com.
***
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is trial attorney who has obtained several million dollar recoveries for his clients against employers and insurance companies. He has been selected as a Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, featured in the cover of Los Angeles Daily Journal’s Verdicts and Settlements, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.