Doc link: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/3/index.do#:~:text=Desormeaux's%20drinking%20at%20the%20party,to%20other%20motorists%2C%20reasonably%20foreseeable.

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 you personally think 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? This question specifically has to do with the "duty of care" analysis in negligence law. You may find it helpful to explicitly do the 3- part Duty of Care analysis, paying special attention to "proximity".

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 to which you referred to.