1. The Supreme Court of Canada distinguishes that duties of care exist between businesses serving alcohol and road users because of the expectation of everyone that alcohol intake is monitored and servers are trained (paragraph 18), the profit motive (paragraphs 20 - 22) and a supervisory relationship (41 - 46: there is no relationship of hosts controlling guests at a party), and says social hosts don't have these same factors present.

Do youpersonallythink that a private person supplying a venue where people are drinking should be sufficient to establish a duty of care to road users (and making them liable to road users for negligence)?Why or why not? Refer to your knowledge of negligence law when answering this question.

2. Do you think the Supreme Court would have decided this case differently if:

a) the host of the party had given the eventual drunk driver free alcohol,

b) if the host of the party had sold alcohol out of his fridge to the eventual drunk driver, or

c) the host had encouraged the eventual drunk driver to play drinking games

If you quote or reference a part of the case, please identify the paragraph which you referred to.