Rust v. Reyer - 91 N.Y.2d 355, 670 N.Y.S.2d 822, 693 N.E.2d 1074 (1998)

Rule:

Any person who shall be injured in person, property, means of support or otherwise, by reason of the intoxication or impairment of ability of any person under the age of twenty-one years, whether resulting in his death or not, shall have a right of action to recover actual damages against any person who knowingly causes such intoxication or impairment of ability by unlawfully furnishing to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages for such person with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that such person was under the age of twenty-one years (General Obligations Law § 11-100 [1]).

Facts:

Respondent Heidi Reyer, then 17, learned that her parents were going to be on vacation over the weekend, thus, she planned a party in their absence. Word of the party reached the ears of a high school fraternity. Its representatives approached her and attempted to convince her to allow them to bring beer to which she agreed, in exchange for a portion of the proceeds. On the day of the party, members arrived with several kegs of beer, which respondent allowed them to store in the garage. Later, acting on the neighbors' complaints, the police arrived. The party was dispersed but the guests, including appellant Carol Rust and a fraternity member Tarantino, milled around in the street near respondent’s house. There, a melee erupted and the frat member punched appellant once in the face, severely injuring her. Appellant ultimately brought suit against respondent, her parents and the frat member, alleging negligence and violations of General Obligations Law §§ 11-100 and 11-101. The frat member settled with plaintiff, and after joinder of issue the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Supreme Court first dismissed the uncontested claims and then granted the remainder of defendant's motion. The court held that while respondent may be said to have facilitated the furnishing of beer to the frat member and other party guests, the statute cannot be stretched to impose liability for this type of conduct. The court further concluded that respondent had not assisted in procuring the alcohol. Appellant appealed only that portion of Supreme Court's order dismissing the General Obligations Law § 11-100 claim against respondent, and the appellate division affirmed. That court held that the law was not applicable to a homeowner who has neither supplied alcohol to nor procured alcohol for consumption by an underage person. 

Issue:

Did the appellate court err in affirming the dismissal of the appellant’s tort action?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the order of the appellate court and ordered that respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing appellant's cause of action should be denied. The court held that the statute imposing liability for social hosts that furnish alcoholic beverages to minors should be interpreted broadly since the statute sought to protect minors from persons uncaring enough to provide intoxicating beverages to them in an indiscriminate manner and by so doing, endangered the life and safety of the minors as well as that of the general public. The court found that the facts, if proven, could bring the respondent’s acts within the meaning of furnishing as used in the statute and intended by the legislature.