CAL No 14 Pty Ltd v Motor Accidents Insurance Board

Facts

The plaintiff's husband, Scott, became heavily intoxicated at a licensed hotel operated by CAL No 14 Pty Ltd. Scott had driven to the hotel, and after consuming a large quantity of alcohol arranged for his motorcycle to be stored on the premises, apparently intending to collect it later. He subsequently returned, retrieved the motorcycle, rode away, and was killed in a single-vehicle accident. The Motor Accidents Insurance Board, as statutory insurer, brought a negligence action against the hotel, alleging it owed Scott a duty to prevent him from riding while intoxicated.

Issues

1. Whether a commercial host (licensed hotel operator) owes a patron a duty of care to take positive steps to prevent the patron from riding a motorcycle while in a state of intoxication caused wholly or substantially by alcohol supplied by that host. 2. Whether any such duty arose on the particular facts, including the circumstance that the hotel had taken temporary custody of the motorcycle.

Holding

The High Court held unanimously that CAL No 14 Pty Ltd owed no duty of care to Scott to prevent him from riding while intoxicated. The appeal was allowed and the judgments below in favour of the respondent were set aside.

Ratio decidendi

There is no general duty of care imposed on a commercial host to take positive steps to prevent an adult patron, who has become intoxicated on the host's premises, from subsequently driving or riding a motor vehicle. An adult patron's voluntary consumption of alcohol and decision to drive are acts of personal autonomy that break any chain of responsibility; the law does not impose on a host an obligation to control or override that autonomous choice merely because the host supplied the alcohol or had temporary custody of the patron's vehicle.

Obiter dicta

The plurality observed that recognising such a duty would sit uneasily with the principle that the law generally does not impose liability for pure omissions or for failing to prevent a third party (here the patron himself) from harming himself, and that courts should be cautious about extending liability in circumstances where the harm results from the free and voluntary act of the plaintiff. The Court also noted that statutory liquor licensing regimes do not, without more, convert a licensee's obligations into common law duties of care sounding in negligence.

Significance

CAL No 14 is the leading Australian authority confirming that commercial hosts do not owe a general common law duty of care to prevent intoxicated adult patrons from driving, affirming the primacy of individual autonomy and limiting the expansion of affirmative duties in negligence. It is regularly applied in cases involving alcohol-related personal injury to deny liability on the part of licensed premises operators.

Key authorities

• Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra Stuart v Kirkland-Veenstra (2009) 237 CLR 215considered
• Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254applied
• Agar v Hyde Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552considered
• Brodie v Singleton Shire Council Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512considered
• Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 469distinguished
• Childs v Desormeaux Childs v Desormeaux [2006] 1 SCR 643considered
• Jordan House Ltd v Menow Jordan House Ltd v Menow [1974] SCR 239considered