Read Childs v Desormeaux (2006), and Hamilton v Kember (2008). Which case decision do you most agree with and why?

2) Hamilton v. Kember, (2008) Hamilton v. Kember involved a party hosted by a 17 year old. Her parents had given the teenager permission to have a party, subject to certain rules, including: (i) a limited number of guests; (ii) no alcohol consumption; and (iii) that their liquor cabinet be locked. The parents left to go camping for the weekend. The teenager locked the liquor cabinet and did not serve any of the guests. The party spiraled out of control, with approximately 100 students attending, and many (including the plaintiffs and the defendant driver) becoming seriously intoxicated. The defendant attended the party, and then drove impaired, colliding with the two plaintiffs who were standing on the side of the road in front of the residence. The plaintiffs suffered catastrophic injuries. The teenager and her parents brought a motion for summary judgment, contending that they were not liable because, as was the case in Child's, they had not served alcohol. The judge disagreed, stating that, in his view, \"the fact that [the 17-year old host] did not serve alcohol is not sufcient to negate potential liability by the parents in these circumstances; therefore it cannot be said that the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintifs and this results in a genuine issue for the trial judge to consider\" Case Brief Case Name & Citation Chiids v Desormeaux, 2006 SCC 18, [2006] 1 SCR 643. Procedural History This is an appeal by the plaintiff (Ms. Childs) to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Childs' previous appeal and the trial judge ruled in favour of the defendant. Facts The plaintiff (Childs), was seriously injured as a result of an intoxicated driver (Desormeaux), and brought an action against the hosts of a party that the defendant (Desormeaux) attended on January 1, 1999 prior to the accident. The plaintiff claims that the social hosts of the party are at fault for the injuries she suffered (paralysis), as they provided the venue in which the defendant became intoxicated, and knowingly allowed him to leave the premises in his vehicle while intoxicated. The defendant was impaired at the time of the accident, exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit. Mr. Desormeaux pled guilty to a series of criminal charges arising from these events and received a 10year sentence. According to the plaintiff. a duty of care is owed to her by the social hosts, for if they had exercised better controUinuence over the party at which Mr. Desormeaux was drinking, the injuries she sustained would have been avoided. Issue(s) Does the social host who invited guests to an event where alcohol was served owe a legal duty of care to third parties injured by intoxicated guests? (Par 8) Decision Appeal dismissed. Social host does not owe a duty of care. Reasons Rulei'T est: The rule set out in Arms v Merton, as applied in Cooper v Hobart, which continues to be the appropriate test to apply where the question of whether a duty of care should be imposed in a new situation, requires a 2 stage assessment: Stage 1: 0 Was the harm that occurred a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act? This consideration of reasonable foreseeability must be supplemented by the notion of proximity, which is assessed based on factors arising from the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, including considerations of policy. Stage 2: o If a prtmo facie duty of care is established under Stage 1, are there residual policy considerations outside the relationship of the parties that may negative the imposition of a duty of care? Application of the RulefT est: 0 This is the first time this court has considered the duty of care that the plaintiffs allege in this case. The case does not fall within, and is not analogous to, a category of cases in which a duty of care has previously been recognized. The duty proposed in this case is novel. 0 The existence of a duty of care on the part of commercial providers of alcohol under the Liquor Control Act cannot be extended by simple analogy to the hosts of a private party. 0 The hosts in this circumstance were not found to owe a duty of care to public users of the highway because sufcient proximity and foreseeability were not established. Even if foreseeability were established, no duty would arise because the wrong alleged is a failure to act or nonfeasance in circumstances where there was no positive duty to act. (Par 26) o The application of stage 2 is not necessary in this case. Ratio Social hosts of parties where alcohol is served do not owe a duty of care to public users of highways who may become injured as a result of intoxicated guests, as they do not maintain a relationship of sufficient proximity. Notes Though the court did not apply Stage 2, it did comment that providing a venue for individuals to socialize and consume alcohol is within the parameters of non dangerous conduct and more would be required to establish a danger or risk that would result in the social hosts owing a duty of care. Ifi'when the social hosts had exacerbated the situation and increased risk for guests, exercised paternalistic relationships of supervision and control, or exercised a public function or engaged in a commercial enterprise that included implied responsibilities to the public, a prima facie duty of care would arise and contrary policy considerations at Stage 2 would occur