Biscan v. Brown

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that an adult who hosts a party for minors and knows alcohol will be consumed may owe the minor guests a duty of care, even if the adult does not furnish alcohol. The court upheld the exclusion of evidence concerning the injured minor's prior alcohol-related experiences and juvenile adjudications. It also held that Tennessee's alcoholic-beverage statute precluded allocating fault to a minor who furnished beer to the intoxicated driver.

Holdings

1. The evidence was relevant to Jennifer's capacity, knowledge, and experience in evaluating the risk of riding with an intoxicated driver, but the trial court acted within its discretion under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 by excluding it.
2. The trial court properly excluded Jennifer's juvenile court adjudications in this civil action because Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-133(b) bars use of juvenile-court dispositions and evidence outside juvenile court, subject to an inapplicable criminal-sentencing exception.
3. Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 precludes allocating fault to a person who furnishes alcohol when the claimed injury results from an intoxicated person's consumption; Dana Biscan was therefore not at fault as a matter of law, and the directed verdict was proper.
4. Dana Biscan could not be liable under a negligence-per-se theory because, although furnishing alcohol to a minor may violate criminal statutes, Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 legislatively removes proximate cause for civil liability based on furnishing alcohol.
5. An adult who hosts a party for minors, knows in advance that alcohol will be consumed, and knowingly permits and facilitates that consumption has a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the minor guests from harm, including harm from drinking and driving, even if the adult did not furnish the alcohol.
6. The adult host voluntarily assumed a duty to the minor guests by undertaking to require drinking guests to remain overnight, monitor the party, and protect guests from drinking and driving; failure to enforce the undertaking did not constitute abandonment as a matter of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Jennifer Biscan's prior alcohol experiences and juvenile court citations.
2. Whether Tennessee Code Annotated sections 57-10-101 and 57-10-102 precluded allocating fault to Dana Biscan for furnishing alcohol to Brown, including under a negligence-per-se theory.
3. Whether an adult who hosts a party for minors, knows alcohol will be consumed, and permits the consumption has a common-law duty of care to protect the minor guests.
4. Whether the adult host voluntarily assumed a duty to protect the minor guests from the consequences of drinking and driving.

Disposition

affirmed