Written by Rachel Stewart, Esq.
Much to do has been made about the Maryland Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in Kiriakos v. Phillips, 448 Md. 440, 139 A.3d 1006 (2015) wherein the Court held that a cause of action existed against a home owner for her allowance of under-age drinking at her residence which later resulted in the death of a teen involved in a drunk driving accident. Maryland has historically not recognized social host liability, and there is no dram shop statute imposing liability against a restaurant for the acts of guests who were served despite being visibly intoxicated. Despite this long held position, the plaintiff’s bar has argued that Kiriakos opens the door for social host liability against restaurant owners. However, a close reading of the opinion suggests that Kiriakos is a very narrow holding, and Maryland will continue to adhere to its position that restaurants are not liable for the acts of drivers who were served at their establishments.
The Court’s holding in Kiriakos was based on the homeowner’s violation of a criminal law, Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law §10-117(b), which prohibits an adult from knowingly and willingly allowing a minor to possess or consume alcohol at a residence owned or leased by the adult. The Court found that there is a limited form of social host liability sounding in negligence based on the strong public policy found in the criminal statute that only exists when the adult in question acts knowingly and willingly. The basis of the court’s holding was that the statute at issue was intended to protect a specific class of persons, i.e. persons under the age of 21. In its ruling, the Court specifically acknowledged that Maryland’s Alcoholic Beverages Article, which also prohibits the furnishing of alcohol to minors, is intended to protect a general class of persons and does not create civil liability for tavern owners as set forth in its prior rulings.
That Kiriakos will not change the risk of civil liability to sellers of alcohol for subsequent injuries sustained by the acts of intoxicated patrons is supported by the most recent review of dram shop liability in Warr v. JMGM Group, LLC, 433 Md. 170, 195-99, 70 A.3d 347 (2013). In Warr, the Court held that the defendant tavern owners did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs under a criminal statute prohibiting the sale of alcohol to visibly intoxicated persons. The court restated that a tavern owner who provides alcohol to an intoxicated patron does not exercise control over the conduct of the patron, and a duty does not exist to the general public with respect to harm caused by a third party because no special relationship exists between the tavern owner and the injured person or third party. While the court acknowledged that other states have found dram shop liability under similar criminal statutes, it maintained Maryland’s history that Maryland’s statutes applicable to sellers of alcohol do not extend civil liability for violations of the statute. The court stated that the public policy considerations in doing so are beyond the role of the Court and the State legislature alone is in the best position to extend any civil liability to tavern owners for injuries caused by intoxicated persons. Since the ruling in Warr, the legislature recodified the Alcoholic Beverages article and did not include any provision extending civil liability for subsequent injuries sustained due to their violation. Absent the legislature’s action, the Court’s opinion in Kiriakos does not change the state of dram shop liability in Maryland.
If you have any questions about Kiriakos or the social host liability position of any states in the Mid-Atlantic, KPM Law attorneys are ready to assist.