Rulings on Responsibility

Bonjour,

Those of us in Canada may have seen, read or heard about our Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Zoe Childs case. For those of you who are not in Canada, or who have managed to avoid the news recently, go here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/supremecourt/childs.html

Background: Zoe Childs and her boyfriend were driving in the early morning on January 1, 1999 after a New Year's Eve party and were hit head-on by a drunk driver. The accident resulted in the death of Zoe's boyfriend Derek (aged 17) and left Zoe (aged 18 at the time) a paraplegic for life. The driver who hit them (Desmond Desormeaux) lived and received a sentence of 10 years in prison for his crime. Zoe sued both the driver and the hosts of the party that he was attending for negligence to the tune of $6 million. She won her suit against the driver, but the suit against the hosts of the party was rejected by the court. She then appealed that decision at the Ontario Supreme Court level, which also denied her claim, so she took it to the Supreme Court of Canada which began hearings on her case in January of this year.

The results are in. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the hosts are not responsible for the actions of their guests unless the hosts' behaviour exacerbates the risk.

"A social host at a party where alcohol is served is not under a duty of care to members of the public who may be injured by a guest’s actions, unless the host’s conduct implicates him or her in the creation or exacerbation of the risk," the Supreme Court said.

I think that what Zoe, her family, Derek's family and their whole community has suffered is a tragedy and I don't deny their pain. I do not deny the responsibility of the driver in any way, and the courts didn't either. However, there is now and there has always been a difference between moral obligation and legal obligation. While I don't want to delve too deeply into my philosophical roots, there is a dinstinction between the two.

There is a certain point at which childhood ends and we become responsible for our actions as autonomous moral agents. In Canada, the age of majority is 18. This means that this is the age at which we can vote, enter military service, enter into legal binding agreements etc. Without splitting too many hairs about the ages between 16 and 18, essentially if you screw up as a child, the state will let you off gently because we have determined that you're not fully formed as an autonomous moral agent yet. After that magical time at which you become an adult though, we expect you to take responsiblity for your actions. Sort of. At least until around the late 1980s or early 1990s anyway. I'm not an expert on this, but sometime around then people in the States started the trend of suing others (particularly big corporations) when they screwed up. For many reasons. The biggest one that comes to mind happened in the 90s when a woman successfully sued McDonald's for millions after she spilled her coffee in her lap and it burned her. As a result of this one lawsuit, all take away coffee cups (or lids) have 'Caution, contents may be hot' or something similar printed on them. (Which is helpful, because otherwise, I wouldn't know that the tea I just paid good money for was piping hot.)

So, when did we stop being responsible for our actions? Read the newspapers. Watch the news on t.v. It's staggering (to me anyway). The best place to start looking is at crime stories. The person who perpetrates the crime never seems to be responsible anymore. There is always an excuse for their behaviour. Perhaps they were abandoned as children (see earlier blog on abortion), perhaps they were abused. Perhaps they were downsized. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Some of the most bizarre lawsuits I've read about come from the US (seemingly more litigious than we). I have read stories about burglars suing homeowners because the family dog bit the burglar during the course of a break-in and the burglar won the suit and was awarded damages.

I'm reminded of something I heard as child. (Whoever told it to me is going to be upset that I don't remember who told me, but please forgive me if you're reading this.) The reasoning behind your behaviour when you screw up doesn't excuse it, it just explains it.

So, after rambling a little far and wide on this one, I'm not suggesting that Zoe is not taking responsibility for her actions. That's not what my rant today is about. It's kind of general. Zoe's story just brought this up. I'm glad that the Supreme Court held the driver responsible for his actions and not a third party. I'm sorry for Zoe and I understand why she would want people to pay. I would not wish her experience on anyone, but I wouldn't hold the hosts responsible.

To get back to the distiction between moral and legal obligations, as a party host (who doesn't often drink) I do pay attention to what my guests are drinking and I would feel a certain degree of responsibility if someone at one of my parties got into an accident after leaving as a result of drinking too much. However, that is a choice I make. I don't have big parties and I typically don't drink. This is something manageable for me. The law is something completely different. It is decided upon by our government (in this case a body of people appointed by our elected representatives), and it is something which applies to all citizens. We do not have a choice in this regard (aside from the choice to obey the law or not); the law is there as a part of our social contract which helps keep society functioning. After we reach the age of majority, we are active participants in that social contract (whether we vote or not) and we are responsible for our own actions, not the actions of others. We are not the babysitters of our guests. We are not responsible for other members of the social contract unless they are our children.

I applaud the Supreme Court's ruling.