| Jordan House Hotel Ltd v Menow |
|---|
 |
Hearing: 8–9 November 1972
Judgment: 7 May 1973 |
|---|
| Citations | [1974] SCR 239 |
|---|
| Prior history | APPEAL from Menow v. Honsberger et al. 1970 CanLII 47 (27 April 1970) |
|---|
| Ruling | Appeal dismissed |
|---|
| Court Membership |
|---|
Chief Justice: Gérald Fauteux
Puisne Justices: Douglas Abbott, Ronald Martland, Wilfred Judson, Roland Ritchie, Emmett Hall, Wishart Spence, Louis-Philippe Pigeon, Bora Laskin |
| Reasons given |
|---|
| Majority | Laskin J, joined by Martland and Spence JJ |
|---|
| Concurrence | Ritchie J, joined by Judson J |
|---|
| Fauteux CJ and Abbott, Hall and Pigeon JJ took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Jordan House Hotel Ltd v Menow (1973) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the commercial host liability where the Court held that a bar owner has a duty to reasonably ensure their intoxicated patrons are able to make it home safely.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Menow had a reputation of behaving badly and was banned from the Jordan House Hotel for drunken behavior. Eventually he was allowed back and was allowed to be served alcohol on the condition that he be escorted by a responsible adult. On a later night he went to the hotel bar but was abandoned by his escort for three hours while he was served drinks. He became extremely intoxicated and began to harass other patrons. Menow was soon ejected from the hotel bar and started to make his way home down a highway but was hit by a car.
Menow brought an action against the hotel in tort for violating their duty of care by serving him alcohol and not ensuring he was safe when he left the hotel.
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.
In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.
At trial, the court held that the hotel violated a common law duty of care to protect patrons from "danger of personal injury, foreseeable as a result of the eviction". The duty, the trial judge found, could have easily been discharged by calling the police or arrange for a safe way home.
The Supreme Court upheld much of the trial judge's ruling. Ritchie J. found that the hotel was aware of Menow's behaviour yet still assisted him in becoming intoxicated, which they ought to have known might result in danger to Menow. This awareness should have "seized them with a duty to be careful not to serve him with repeated drinks after the effects of what he had already consumed should have been obvious." The breach of duty was a result of both a failure to protect Menow once he became intoxicated and a failure to ensure he did not become intoxicated in the first place.
A bar is a retail business establishment that serves alcoholic beverages, such as beer, wine, liquor, cocktails, and other beverages such as mineral water and soft drinks and often sell snack foods such as potato chips or peanuts, for consumption on premises. Some types of bars, such as pubs, may also serve food from a restaurant menu. The term "bar" also refers to the countertop and area where drinks are served. The term "bar" is also derived from the metal or wooden bar that is often located at feet along the length of the "bar".
A dram shop is a bar, tavern or similar commercial establishment where alcoholic beverages are sold. Traditionally, it is a shop where spirits were sold by the dram, a small unit of liquid.
Public intoxication, also known as "drunk and disorderly" and drunk in public, is a summary offense in some countries rated to public cases or displays of drunkenness. Public intoxication laws vary widely from jurisdiction, but usually require some obvious display of intoxicated incompetence or behavior disruptive/obnoxious to public order before the charge is levied.
Alcohol server training is a form of occupational education typically provided to servers, sellers and consumers of alcohol to prevent intoxication, drunk driving and underage drinking. This training is sometimes regulated and mandated by state and local laws predominantly in North America, and increasingly in other English-speaking countries such as Australia.
R v Daviault [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of the defence of intoxication for "general intent" criminal offences. The Leary rule which eliminated the defence was found unconstitutional in violation of both section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, intoxication can only be used as a defence where it is so extreme that it is akin to automatism or insanity.
Gilbert Paul Jordan, known as the "Boozing Barber", was a Canadian serial killer who is believed to have committed the so-called "alcohol murders" in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Social host liability is created by a statute or case law that imposes liability on social hosts as a result of their serving alcohol to adults or minors. A social host is most often a private individual who serves alcohol in a non-commercial setting. Persons subject to social-host liability in civil actions are typically those that provided alcohol to the obviously intoxicated social guests who subsequently are involved in vehicle crashes or other activities causing death or injury to third parties, or to minors who are injured as a result of intoxication that results from service of alcohol by the host, but the circumstances under which social host liability can result varies by jurisdiction.
America West Airlines Flight 556 was a regularly scheduled flight from Miami, Florida, to Phoenix, Arizona, operated by an America West Airlines Airbus A319. On July 1, 2002, the plane was ordered back to the terminal after the pilots were suspected of being drunk beyond the legal limit. The pilots were ultimately convicted of operating an aircraft while intoxicated.
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984), was a 1983 case before the US Supreme Court determining whether a warrantless arrest violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a Jewish Air Force officer was denied the right to wear a yarmulke when in uniform on the grounds that the Free Exercise Clause applies less strictly to the military than to ordinary citizens.
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887), was an important United States Supreme Court case in which the 8–1 opinion of Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan and the lone partial dissent by Associate Justice Stephen Johnson Field laid the foundation for the Supreme Court's later acceptance and defense during the Lochner era of Justice Field's theory of economic substantive due process under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The state laws governing alcoholic drinks in New Jersey are among the most complex in the United States, with many peculiarities not found in other states' laws. They provide for 29 distinct liquor licenses granted to manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and for the public warehousing and transport of alcoholic drinks. General authority for the statutory and regulatory control of alcoholic drinks rests with the state government, particularly the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control overseen by the state's Attorney General.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.
Alcohol prohibition in India is in force in the states of Bihar,
Gujarat, Mizoram and Nagaland as well as in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. All other Indian states and union territories permit the sale of alcohol.
Ronald E. Nehring was a Justice of the Utah Supreme Court. He was appointed to the court in 2003 by Utah Governor Michael Leavitt, and he retired in 2015.
People driving under the influence of alcohol are commonly referred to as drunk drivers, or drink-drivers. When charged with this as a crime, it may either be referred to as a DUI or a DWI, where a DUI is generally considered to be a lesser crime. Studies have been performed to identify commonalities between severe drunk drivers. Laws are also in place to protect citizens from the consequences incurred by drunk drivers.
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.
