The Graffs V. Hausmon Case. Please write briefly and clearly about the importance of this case, consequence and stuffs (treat it as a discussion topic) 2 pages without reference (waste of space)
Can you make it done in 1 and a half hour ?
So please write it as to what can be delivered as a speech; I meant simple words
The Graff’s V. Hausmon Case is based on imposing a common law duty on a host that makes alcohol available to a guest that the host knows would be driving. Houston Moos injures Brett Beard in an accident after drinking alcohol in a party hosted by the Graffs and Hausmons. Houston becomes intoxicated and while driving, he hits Beard with his care. Beard sued both the host and the driver for his injuries but the case was dismissed due to lack of cause of action. The trial was reversed in a court of appeal which argued that social hosts be liable to third parties for the damages inflicted by their intoxicated guests. After the hearing in the Supreme Court, imposing common-law duty to hosts that provided alcohol to guest knowing they will drive was declined. However, the case resulted in several changes as discussed in this paper.The Graffs V. Hausmon Case
The court determined that the legislature had declined making a social host accountable. However, it described that alcohol provider has a duty to ensure they do not create evitable risk by making alcohol available to their guests. The case intruded with what people refer to as enjoyment which involves alcohol consumption as a form of entertainment and relaxation. People value the social gatherings which create social relationships but the added assurance of compensation to drunken driving victims and warning to drunken driving was more important than the values of social gathering.The Graffs V. Hausmon Case
The case also imposed a sense of responsibility to social gathering hosts. In occasions where the host decline alcoholic beverages to already intoxicated guests, it tempers the spirit of hospitality. Nevertheless, the host should not budge to idea of pleasing the guests at the cost endangering them and other people. Hospitality should be moderate by taking other people’s lives into consideration. A social gathering host has the ability to reasonably know the level of intoxication of a guest and possess the ability to control it by cutting of alcohol consumption for the guest. However, the ultimate behavior of a person lies with them and they have an obligation to control themselves hence they are responsible for their actions.The Graffs V. Hausmon Case
The court held the drinker responsible for their behavior and the appellants were not responsible for any injuries sustained by the appellee. According to the Supreme Court, it was not clear that a host could recognize the intoxication level of a guest and if they did, the guest may not respond to the host’s attempt to stop them from driving. Also, there might not be a relationship existing between the host and the guest which would make it difficult for the host to exert control over a drunk guest. The Supreme Court reversed the judgement ruled by the Court of Appeal because of the common law which held the drinker accountable for his actions. There was no social duty imposed on the host that provided alcohol to a person they knew would be driving. The whole case from the beginning had its importance. The host was protected from being responsible for adults who got drunk in the social gatherings. The person taking alcohol is declared responsible for their actions despite their condition. The case sparked a sense of responsibility to hosts and their guests. The host can control the guests’ actions if they can but the guest will be responsible for their actions under the influence of alcohol.The Graffs V. Hausmon Case