It was meant to be a night of celebration for Mr and Mrs Ryan as they celebrated the 21st birthday of their son. Hosting a party with 'a hundred and something . . . young ones' at their large property, the couple expected a little ruckus. What they were not prepared for, however, was for the night to end the way it did.
The recent Queensland Supreme Court decision of Dearden v Ryan[1] has important implications both for partygoers and hosts. Occupiers and hosts may now be liable for the criminal actions of their intoxicated guests.
Accordingly, it is important that party hosts understand the duty of care they owe to others and that partygoers understand their rights if they are injured.
What Happened at the Party?
Mr and Mrs Ryan hosted a 21st birthday party for their son on their large property. The party was carefully planned to ensure the attendee's safety, including:
- Providing almost an unlimited amount of alcohol to guests to ensure that they did not need to leave the property for more alcohol;
- Implementing measures to deter people from driving home by inviting guests to stay overnight;
- Arranging for a separate and safe area for partygoers to camp out; and Using a breathalyser for guests wanting to drive away from the party.
At dusk, the electricity supply failed. Mr Ryan collected a generator, two full jerrycans, and a smaller jerrycan from an adjacent property that he used to restore electricity. The smaller jerrycan was used to fill the generator and was placed onto Mr Ryan's ute, while the two full cans were placed in a secluded and difficult-to-access position to prevent the intoxicated guests from accessing the fuel. Mr Ryan did not check to ensure the small jerrycan was empty.
Later in the night, a grassfire occurred. Mr Ryan quickly put out the fire, and in doing so, he noticed the small jerrycan nearby. He picked it up and noted, 'It didn't feel like it had anything in it. It felt quite empty.' [2] Again, he did not check to ensure the small jerrycan was empty. He instructed his son to 'put it in the shed' [3] and did not check where specifically his son put it as he assumed it was empty and trusted his son.
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
Later in the night, Mr Dearden, an attendee of the birthday party, relieved himself from the party and went to sleep in his sleeping bag in the car park area of the property. Mr Taylor, another attendee of the party, noticed Mr Dearden asleep and, in his drunken state, decided 'to wake [Mr Dearden] up via lighting his swag on fire'.[4]
Mr Taylor found the fuel in the small jerrycan in the shed. Without any animosity between himself and Mr Dearden, he and his peers proceeded to empty the remaining contents of the small jerrycan onto Mr Dearden and light him on fire.
As a result, Mr Dearden suffered burns to the right side of his body.
What Happened to the Victim?
Mr Dearden brought proceedings for damages for personal injuries against Mr and Mrs Ryan, as both the owner-occupiers and hosts of the party. Mr Taylor was also a third party to the proceedings. Mr Dearden argued that Mr and Mrs Ryan were negligent as the party's hosts and owner-occupiers of the land.
What is Negligence?
To be successful in a claim for negligence, one must establish:
1. A duty of care was owed;
2. The duty of care was breached;
3. Due to the breach of duty, a loss was sustained.
Did the Hosts Owe a Duty of Care to Their Guests?
The Court held that Mr and Mrs Ryan owed Mr Dearden a duty of care to take reasonable steps to minimise the foreseeable risk of harm.
Specifically, the Court held that despite Mr Taylor's actions being criminal, the 'risk of suffering a burn injury from an uncontrolled fire lit by an intoxicated guest from petrol made available by the defendants' [5] was foreseeable, particularly in light of the earlier grassfire.
It was further considered that given the amount of thought Mr and Mrs Ryan put into organising the party and ensuring the partygoers' safety, it should have been apparent that supplying their young guests with a near-unlimited amount of alcohol and not taking steps to ensure that fuel was placed away out of reach of the intoxicated guests, would have resulted in such an incident.
Accordingly, Mr and Mrs Ryan breached their duty of care by failing to appropriately store fuel and allowing it to be readily accessed by their intoxicated guests.
The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the defendants were liable for negligence and that Mr Dearden was entitled to damages of $600,797.55.
Conclusion
The key takeaway points from this case result are:
1. If you are a party host, you may be liable for the actions of your intoxicated guests, even if those acts constitute criminal behaviour. Accordingly, it is important that you take measures to minimise any foreseeable risks of harm, particularly the harm of intoxicated guests gaining access to hazardous instruments and the like;
2. If you are injured at a party, you may be entitled to compensation from not only the person who caused you harm but also the host of the party and the owner-occupier of the premises. Importantly, this case demonstrates that even if you are injured through unusual or criminal acts, the legal system finds a way to help you out and provide compensation.
Please feel free to contact our friendly team for all your legal needs.
[1] Dearden v Ryan [2022] QSC 111.
[2] Ibid [19].
[3] Ibid [12].
[4] Ibid [23].
[5] Ibid [39].