Teen drinking sparks controversy in Chicago suburb -- What's the liability?
Thirteen North Shore teenagers were recently given underage drinking citations after their hired limousine driver called the Highland Park Police Department to report that a teen tried to bring alcohol onto his “party bus” on homecoming night.

Limousine driver Leonel Cesar who called police to report
Highland Park teenagers tried to smuggle booze into his
"party bus" on homecoming night. (Chicago Tribune photo)
The incident has sparked considerable debate, and while many parents reportedly support the driver’s decision to call the police, at least one of the teens' parents has threatened to sue. Personally, I prefer to have intoxicated teenagers in the relative safety of a chauffeured vehicle rather than behind the wheel. Many parents and “zero tolerance” advocates will disagree, but that is a policy and human nature question less relevant to this forum.
This incident does bring up several legal questions. In this case, the driver noticed that one teen attempted to bring a bag onto the party bus, questioned that teen, and ascertained quickly that the bag contained alcohol. Generally, citizens have no legal duty to report a crime (excepting some professions and jobs), but the driver won’t be held liable despite a parent’s threatened suit for his reporting of unlawful teenage drinking. The right of privacy crumbles when unlawful acts are involved, and at least one of the teens unsuccessfully attempted to pay to keep the driver quiet, which gave the driver actual knowledge of the teens’ possession of alcohol.
In this case, the teens were merely cited, but what liability might the driver and company have faced had the teens suffered injuries? Illinois has a specific law that holds liable one who willfully supplies alcohol (or drugs) to minors for resultant injuries or property damage “caused by the impairment” of the minor. This law also extends to those who “willfully” permit a minor to consume alcohol on non-residential premises under their ownership or control. Hired vehicles, however, are not premises, and the driver did not willfully supply alcohol to the teens.
It is well-settled under the law that a hired company and driver of passengers owe the “highest degree of care” for their passengers’ protection. As with negligence generally, this duty extends to protecting passengers from injuries that are reasonably foreseeable and avoidable. Would the company and driver be liable, then, for injuries potentially sustained by the teens? Certainly, were the teens to become drunk, leave the vehicle, and become injured elsewhere, then those injuries would not be relevant to the motor transportation. Were the teens to become injured in the vehicle, perhaps while exiting the party bus, then the company and driver might be more likely to face liability, as it would be foreseeable that drunk passengers might injure themselves falling out of the vehicle, but then any liability could be reduced or eliminated because the teens themselves would be to blame for their intoxication.
The driver and company, though, were hired to provide transportation, not to act as surrogate parents or guardians for the teenagers. They should not be held liable for the acts of the teenagers when they neither provided specific premises for the purpose of allowing teens to drink nor supplied alcohol to the teens. That said, was the driver smart to be “better safe than sorry?” Perhaps yes – we don’t know what the company’s contract states as to their liability, but had one of the teens become injured as a result of intoxication, you can bet that one of the teen’s parents would have sued the driver and the company. In such a case, especially if the driver had actual knowledge of the teens’ possession of alcohol and knew them to be drinking, attorneys could argue that the driver and company provided a location – if not premises – for the teens to drink. Even if the driver and company were not held liable, the costs of defending such a negligence lawsuit would be considerable.
Throughout the country, long-standing debates about legal drinking age and the responsible consumption of alcohol continues. No matter what your own position is on underage drinking, as states consider changes to legal alcohol consumption age laws and incidents of underage drinking are increasingly examined by the courts and create new precedents in case law, our firm can help you understand your legal obligations and liabilities.









Personally I think the driver did the right thing. Not because I've needed someone to monitor my children's actions. If he had allowed the teens to bring alcohol into the limo he could be assumed to be condoning their underage drinking and he should not have been put in that position.
This brings up a question for which I'd really like your opinion. What is the liability of a home owner who has a party, serving alcohol, to those of legal age knowing they will be driving? Is the home owner required to wrestle the car keys away and insist their guest spend the night? I ask because in our "sue happy" society, dependent on your decision regarding your perhaps intoxicated guest, couldn't you be liable for a resulting car accident or sued for assault if you try to keep the guest from driving?
Reply to this
That's a good question, and I can expand on the question a bit before I provide an answer.
When a social host (i.e. private person) provides alcohol, we are dealing with the doctrine of "Social Host Liability." As I covered briefly above, Illinois has a specific statute authorizing liability for social hosts who supply alcohol to minors or provide the premises for minors to drink. This is a tough law; Wisconsin's courts, for example, authorize liability for specifically supplying alcohol but not simply for having minors drink on one's premises.
This does not, however, extend to those who supply alcohol to adults (21 and over). The law basically holds that social hosts are not responsible for the acts of adult guests; the "proximate cause" of subsequent injuries or damage would be the acts (excessive drinking) of the adult guest and not the acts (providing alcohol) of the social host. This is the typical rule, but it may depend on the state; I know that California's courts began to create Social Host Liability in the 70s, but the California Legislature passed a law that specifically denied Social Host Liability, and that statute is still in force today.
Social Host Liability does not include business establishments such as bars, however, as that situation is covered by the doctrine of "Dram Shop Liability" ("Dram Shop" refers to a bar, tavern, or the like, from "dram," an old unit of measure by which alcohol was sold). In many states, such as Illinois, a bar that serves intoxicated persons can be held liable for those persons' subsequent acts. The states vary on how obviously intoxicated that person had to be to result in liability for the bar. Some states, such as California, do not recognize that liability, but do make serving an obviously intoxicated person or "habitual drunkard" a misdemeanor!
Reply to this
That is really very good article. I am glad to know. Thanks!
Reply to this