Nursing Home Nightmare: Sexual Abuse in Care Facilities

Written By Christopher Dolan and Cristina Garcia

This week’s question comes from David K. in San Francisco:

My older sister, Lucy, is forty-one years old and suffers from physical and mental impairments. She uses a wheelchair and has trouble communicating. A couple of years ago, my parents and I made the tough decision to place her in a nursing home, as my parents could no longer care for her. We researched the facility, and it appeared to be a well-equipped facility for my sister’s needs. I would visit my sister on the weekends. I observed a male resident who seemed friendly and often engaged in conversation with Lucy during my visits. At the time, I thought it was nice for Lucy to have a friend in the facility. However, this all changed during one of my visits when I found this male resident in her room. They were by themselves, and he was lying in bed with her, which I found completely inappropriate. I immediately asked him to leave. I then spoke to one of the nurses and notified her of the incident. She apologized and assured me it wouldn’t happen again. Lucy’s nurse also stated that this male resident had exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior to other female residents. When I heard this, I was utterly disgusted. I have seen news stories about health providers who have sexually or physically abused residents. However, I am not sure what to do in this situation as the person abusing Lucy was another resident. Can the facility be held accountable for the other resident’s behavior, as they previously knew about his sexual tendencies?

David, it is terrible that you and your family had to go through this experience. As you mentioned, many news stories discuss physical or sexual abuse by health providers. However, it is the nursing home’s responsibility to ensure the safety of all residents, not only from health providers but also from other residents. 

Under the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (“EADACPA”), codified as Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 et sec. A “Dependent Adult” is defined as “any person between the ages of 18 and 64 who resides in this state and who has physical or mental limitations that restrict his or her ability to carry out normal activities or to protect his or her rights, including, but not limited to, persons who have physical or developmental disabilities, or who physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.23(a). The law further defines “dependent adult” to include any person between the ages of 18 and 64 years who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.23(b). 

Based on the information you have provided, it appears that Lucy is a dependent adult who relied on the nursing home staff to protect her from harm. Under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15610.57, “Neglect” includes the “failure to protect from health and safety hazards.”

Furthermore, “Abuse” is defined as “the negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of an elder or a dependent adult to exercise that degree of care that a reasonable person in a like position would exercise.”  The nursing facility was negligent in the care of Lucy because they failed to protect her from health and safety hazards. Despite having knowledge that the male resident had sexual tendencies, the facility did not properly monitor the resident and allowed him to continue interacting with female residents without supervision. In addition, the facility’s conduct would fall under “abuse” as defined by the EADACPA because a reasonable person in a like position would not allow the male resident to interact with Lucy without supervision and should not have allowed them to be alone in her room. Once the facility became aware of the sexual tendencies of the male resident, they should have taken precautionary measures, including monitoring his behavior and whereabouts to ensure he was not left alone with other residents he could harm.

read more

Dolan Law Firm Wishes You a Safe Labor Day Weekend

Written By: Mari Bandoma Callado, Senior Associate Attorney and Director, DE&I

Dolan Law Firm hopes you and your family have a wonderful and safe Labor Day Weekend. To help you safely enjoy the end of the summer, we put together these safety tips:

Social Gatherings

Over the course of the last 18 months or so, we learned that social gatherings may lead to the spread of COVID-19. With hospitalizations and deaths due to the highly contagious delta variant of COVID-19, we encourage you to stay vigilant. 

If you are attending a social gathering this holiday weekend please avoid being in a crowd and poorly ventilated spaces as much as possible, try to maintain a physical distance of 6 feet, wash your hands often, and wear a mask when outside your home, in public, and around others. If you are feeling sick or have been exposed to someone with COVID-19, we urge you to stay home.
Click here for more information on safely gathering and here on how to protect yourself and others. If you are not yet received the COVID-19 vaccine but are interested in learning more, click here.

Drive Safely

If you are going on a road trip or just driving around town this weekend, please drive safely. The National Safety Council estimates approximately 390 deaths and another 44,400 serious injuries over Labor Day weekend this year. Please wear your seatbelt, don’t drink and drive (designate a driver instead), and maintain a safe speed.
For more safety tips while driving, click here.

Swim and Boat Safely

If you are heading to the beach or the pool this weekend, please be cautious. Do not swim alone (in case you become incapacitated). If you are swimming with children, designate a responsible adult to supervise children at all times as they swim or play by the water. If you are going to the lake or a river, please wear a life jacket.
For more swimming safety tips click here.

If you will be on a boat, please do not underestimate the dangers of the water. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, most boating accidents occur because of excessive speed, lack of experience, and distractions. Do not drink and boat. It is against the law in California to operate a boat or water ski with a blood concentration (BAC) of 0.08%.
For more boating safety tips click here.

read more

Jury Duty during COVID-19

Written By Christopher Dolan and Lourdes De Armas

This week’s question comes from James P. in Daly City: I recently received a Jury Duty Summons. With everything that is going, do I still need to serve on a Jury? Should I ignore it?

Thank you for your question James. 

It is true that many courtrooms have begun hearing jury trials, but many courts are prioritizing criminal cases. The Los Angeles Courts have been focusing on the 7000 criminal cases that are currently backlogged, according to Presiding Judge Eric Taylor.

This is pushing aside civil cases leaving many victims anxiously waiting for their personal injury trial. The delayed cases include:

  • people badly injured in car accidents,
  • medical malpractice,
  • workplace accidents,
  • sexual assault and
  • workplace harassment

The delays are primarily attributable to the pandemic shutdown of 2020. The apparent second surge of COVID-19 cases in various California counties are reinstating previous pandemic restrictions and quarantines. This trend may soon cascade to every county across the state and that could mean additional trial extensions that will continue to backlog all cases. This legal landscape is justifiably frightening to those awaiting verdicts.

There is another reason for delays that is plaguing every court across the state. So much that even criminal trials are being delayed. Jury trials whether criminal or civil are paralyzed without a key component: JURORS.

Within the past few months, courts from Sacramento to San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego had to delay trials because too few people responded to jury duty summonses. Across the state, the non-response rates are much higher now than they were before the pandemic.

San Francisco’s Superior Court gives potential jurors the option to report online or in person is experiencing an online trend. Just in July, in one case, out of 135 jurors instructed to report, 127 reported remotely and 8 people reported in person to the courthouse. Of the 8 people who showed up to court, half of them were dismissed, leaving just 4 in person prospective jurors for the trial.

A television station in San Diego recently reported that a criminal case had to be postponed last month because too few people showed up for jury duty. Officials twice summoned 900 people, but only about 40 people showed up each time, KGTV reported.

“What the real question boils down to are people willing to show up to that court and sit in a jury trial?” said Bill Raftery, a senior analyst with the National Center for State Courts. “Many courts have been responsive to jurors who have said that they’re not comfortable with coming to court and doing jury duty and therefore offering deferrals simply because of concerns over COVID.” 

These shortages of jurors have created delays in criminal trials that infringes on the constitutional rights of many. The law says that individuals facing criminal charges are presumed innocent. For some defendants who have not been convicted and are awaiting their day in court, can’t make bail or are being held without bail, it is more time behind bars as a pretrial detainee.

What can you do if you receive a jury summons? Do not ignore it. You are needed. “Justice has not shut down. Justice has slowed down,” said Deborah Chang, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California.

There is currently a big impact on civil proceedings. Victims of personal injury are often disabled and maybe out of work because of some tragic incident and cannot wait months or years for a trial date or settlement. “It is devastating on the clients and the family who are desperate,” according to Chang. The side effects of these delays are devastating to victims who are in the weakest health. They may be clinging to life due to an injury in an accident, or perhaps a workplace exposure to a harmful substance. “It is so devastating to lose a plaintiff before they reach the trial date because they die. Sometimes the claim dies with them,” said Chang.

The system cannot function without you. Jury trials provide an opportunity for citizens to participate in the process of governing. Serving on a jury is the most direct and impactful way for citizens to connect to the constitution. Citizens can help perpetuate our system of laws and stabilize our democracy. 

Jurors perform a vital role in the American system of justice. The protection of our rights and liberties is largely achieved through the teamwork of judge and jury who, working together in a common effort, put into practice the principles of our legal system. In both civil and criminal cases, it is the jury’s duty to decide the facts in accordance with the principles of law and guided by the assigned judge. The decision is made on the evidence introduced, and the jury’s decision on the facts is usually final. 

Juries provide the perspective of the citizen to our developing body of law. Exercise your constitutional right to participate in a process that is a cornerstone of American democracy: the jury trial!

***

The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) outbreak is an ongoing, rapidly developing situation and the local, state, and federal responses are changing regularly. The Dolan Law Firm takes efforts to keep the information on this page updated, however, to guarantee up to date information it is necessary to confirm with publicly available federal, state and local health organization guidance and government mandates.

read more

California Recall: How Do I Review My Ballot And Why Is It So Confusing?

Written by Christopher B. Dolan and Kimberly Levy

This week’s question comes from Matty G. in San Francisco: I got my recall ballot in the mail today. It is a little confusing. To start with, it’s asking me two questions. Do I answer the second question even if I vote “no” on the recall? Also, there are more than 40 candidates. Is there a minimum percentage of votes that the winner would need if Newsom were recalled? How did we end up here?   

Thank you for your important questions, Matty.

Recall Vote Background:

On September 14, 2021, California voters will decide whether Governor Gavin Newsom should be recalled (removed) from office, and if he is removed, who should replace him. Forty-six candidates, including nine Democrats and 24 Republicans are vying to replace Governor Newsom.  

Orrin Heatlie, a retired Patrol Sergeant, is the man behind this, and multiple previous recall campaigns, against Newsom. According to his twitter page, he began his efforts to remove Newsom from office in August 2019, months before Coronavirus hit. The efforts didn’t really pick up steam until Newsom’s French Laundry dinner—a year and some months later. As the story goes, Newsom attended a dinner party with a dozen friends at a luxurious restaurant in the wine country. It didn’t help that this party was a few weeks before he announced sweeping stay-at-home orders in mid-November 2020.  

This perceived hypocrisy was used to anger voters. How dare Newsom prohibit others from doing that he himself did not refrain from doing? It didn’t matter if Newsom and his dinner guests were seated outside and complied with state guidelines at the time.

Recall supporters used this momentum against Newsom to gather sufficient signatures necessary to trigger the recall election.  

Logistics of the Recall Election: Understanding the ballot

The recall ballot asks two questions:

  1. Shall GAVIN NEWSOM be recalled (removed) from the office of Governor?
  2. If GAVIN NEWSOM is recalled from office, who shall replace him?

Voters are not required to vote on both questions. Instead, a voter may vote on either one or both parts of the recall ballot. 

It is important to note that a voter may vote “no” to the question of recalling Governor Newsom from office and also select a replacement candidate.

If one-half or more of the votes on the recall question are “no,” Governor Newsom will remain in office. If a majority of the votes are in favor of recalling Governor Newsom, he will be removed and replaced with the candidate that received the most votes, even if proportionally, that candidate received a smaller percentage of the vote than those who voted for Newsom to remain in office. For example, 49.9% of California voters could vote to keep Newsom in office (essentially a “Newsom for Governor” vote), but he would be removed as he did not earn a majority; he could then be replaced with a candidate earning only slightly more than 3% of the California popular vote.   

After the Election

If a majority of voters vote “yes” on the recall, Governor Newsom will be removed from office. After the election, county elections officials have 30 days to complete the official canvass. The election would be certified on the 38th day following the election. The new governor would take the oath of office for the remainder of Newsom’s term, though January 2, 2023.

If half of voters vote “no” on the recall, California will carry on with Newsom as Governor.

If Governor Newsom is Recalled, His Successor May Be Elected with Slightly More Than 3% of the Vote. Is this unconstitutional?:

As has been mentioned, although the recall effort must win more than 50% of the vote to succeed, the successor candidate simply needs to do better than all of the other 45 candidates. Newsom may be removed despite 49% of Californians desiring him to stay. His replacement may be elected with as little as 3% of the vote. This implies that 95-97% of voting Californians disapprove of the candidate selected under this scenario and applies unequal weight to votes.

This inequality could be resolved by simply allowing voters to vote for Newsom to replace himself should the recall vote succeed. Currently, this solution is prohibited by California Elections Code. However, a lawsuit seeking to stop the recall election or to add Governor Newsom’s name to the ballot as his own replacement has been filed in Federal Court. The suit argues that the election, as is, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it allows a sitting governor to be unseated by a candidate who received fewer votes. 

Preserving and Restoring Voting Rights Must Become a Priority:

No matter the outcome of this lawsuit and the recall election, US citizens must recognize the importance of preserving the rights of all voters, regardless of political affiliation. Since 2011, 22 laws passed in 14 states that restrict voting. Within the last year, more than 389 bills introduced have been 48 states that include broad restrictions, and nothing is being done to counteract these laws and ensure access of all eligible voters. Although laws can restrict voting and at times make ballots confusing change starts with awareness, research and action. Make your voice count and vote.   

***

Disclaimer: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) outbreak is an ongoing, rapidly developing situation and the local, state, and federal responses are changing regularly. The Dolan Law Firm takes efforts to keep the information on this page updated, however, to guarantee up to date information it is necessary to confirm with publicly-available federal, state and local health organization guidance and government mandates.

read more

Celebrating Women’s Equality Day

By Mari Bandoma Callado, Senior Associate Attorney and Director, DE&I

Women’s Equality Day commemorates the August 26, 1920 certification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that gave women the right to vote. This historic event marks an important shift in American constitutional rights and gender equality even though it wouldn’t be until 1965 that the Voting Rights Act would provide suffrage for all American women regardless of race.

The struggle for Women’s Suffrage was only the first step toward equality for women. Even though women have made great strides towards equity, women’s fight for equal rights continues. The gender pay gap continues to impact women’s economic power. Gender discrimination and sexual harassment are still prevalent in the workplace. Women, especially women of color, are negatively and disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Dolan Law Firm is committed to fighting for equal rights and justice for all. Contact us if you believe you have been discriminated against, sexually-harassed, or denied your rights at work.  

***

Disclaimer: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) outbreak is an ongoing, rapidly developing situation and the local, state, and federal responses are changing regularly. The Dolan Law Firm takes efforts to keep the information on this page updated, however, to guarantee up to date information it is necessary to confirm with publicly-available federal, state and local health organization guidance and government mandates.

read more

California Tenants Are Still Protected from Evictions through September 30

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Katelyn P. Dembowski

Gina from San Francisco asks: What is going to happen now that Congress failed to extend the eviction moratorium? What is California doing to protect tenants during this time? 

Dear Gina: These are really pressing questions. On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention imposed a nationwide temporary federal moratorium on residential evictions for the nonpayment of rent. Legislatures in California had done this on a state level a few days prior, protecting California residents from eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic. The CDC federal eviction moratorium was set to expire on July 31, 2021. Congress failed to extend it, leaving millions of Americans vulnerable to evictions starting as early as August 1. 

Ultimately, House Democrats did not have the votes they needed to extend the moratorium, and Congress adjourned for a seven-week recess (they are expected to be back September 20).  The Biden administration is unable to extend the moratorium through executive action, citing a recent court ruling for their lack of power. The Supreme Court held, in a case by landlords against the federal government, that the CDC’s eviction moratorium was beyond their scope of authority as a federal agency. Unfortunately, the end of the eviction moratorium will leave roughly 3.6 million people in the U.S. on the brink of eviction in the next two months, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey. 

On June 28, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 832 to extend the state’s eviction moratorium through September 30, 2021. This is the third, and likely final, time he has extended the eviction moratorium in California. 

In addition to extending the moratorium, the legislation cleared rent debt for low-income Californians who have suffered hardships during the pandemic. AB 832 will also cover 100% of past-due and prospective rent payments, as well as utility bills, for income-qualified tenants from April 2020 through September 2021.

Here’s how to protect yourself as the eviction moratorium comes to an end: 

  1. If your landlord gives you a notice to “pay or quit,” you cannot be evicted if you return a Declaration of COVID-19 Related Financial Distress. You must return the declaration to your landlord within 15 business days of receiving the notice to “pay or quit.” If you do not provide the signed declaration within 15 business days, an eviction proceeding may be filed against you. If you are unable to provide the declaration to your landlord within 15 business days, you may still submit the declaration to the court, provided you have “good reasons” for not providing it within the 15 days. This includes, but is not limited to, mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under the California Code of Civil Procedure. 
  2. Under AB 832, to be eligible for cleared rent debt, tenants must earn 80% or less of the area median income, which varies for each county within the state. To put that into perspective, San Francisco’s median income in 2019 was $96,265. You would need to earn $77,012 or less to qualify for the additional assistance through AB 832. 
  3. If you make more than the median income and are ineligible for rent debt clearance, you are still protected from eviction if you pay at least 25% of what you owe your landlord by September 30, 2021.
  4. If your household income is more than 130% of the median household income in your county or more than $100,000, your landlord may demand proof of your COVID-19 related hardships be provided to support your declaration. This could be satisfied by tax returns, pay stubs, statements from your employer, etc. 
  5. Until October 1, 2021, a landlord can only evict a tenant if they provide a legally valid reason. For example, you may still be evicted during the moratorium if you break your lease agreement, do something illegal on the property, or the landlord must do necessary renovations. The moratorium is only for past-due rent payments.

The extension of the eviction moratorium in California should give tenants some breathing room as the pandemic goes on. The surge in the COVID-19 Delta variant could potentially be as bad as when the pandemic started. While these are the guidelines in place right now, changes are happening every week, day, and hour, as we have seen throughout the pandemic. Stay safe and keep informed as we continue to navigate this pandemic together. 

***

Disclaimer: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) outbreak is an ongoing, rapidly developing situation and the local, state, and federal responses are changing regularly. The Dolan Law Firm takes efforts to keep the information on this page updated, however, to guarantee up to date information it is necessary to confirm with publicly-available federal, state and local health organization guidance and government mandates.

read more

Loss Of Consortium: Compensating Spouse and Family of the Injured

Written By: Christopher Dolan and Megan Irish

Alejandro C. from Sunset writes: A good friend of mine’s wife got into a really bad car crash, where she broke her leg and got a concussion. The accident was not her fault, she was hit by a drunk driver who ran a red light. It has been almost two years, and she is still not back to normal. She walks with a limp, and she is forgetful and cranky with him and their children. My friend also told me he and his wife have only been intimate a handful of times since the cast was taken off her leg. He is at his wits end and I do not know what to tell him, nor how to be supportive of him through all this. Do you have any advice?

Dear Alejandro: I’m so sorry your friend’s family is going through these horrible injuries, but it is wonderful that you are there for him and want to be as supportive as possible. First, your friend’s spouse, we can call her Jane, has a claim for her personal injuries. She can, within two years, make a claim for her medical bills and lost wages in addition to her pain and suffering against the driver who hit her. Now your friend, we can call him John, has a claim for his loss of consortium against the driver who hurt his spouse. The California Civil Code allows John to make a claim, assuming:

  1. his marriage was valid and lawful at the time of Jane’s injuries,
  2. his spouse suffered a tortious injury,
  3. he suffered a loss of consortium, and 
  4. his loss was proximately caused by the tort defendant’s act. John’s loss of consortium claim will be valued based on his loss of his spouse’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support; as well as the loss of the enjoyment of sexual relations and/or the ability to have children.
    (In this context “loss” can also mean a change to, or diminished amount of the attributes listed above)

John’s claim would be for both the past loss of these elements in his relationship with his spouse, as well as what he is reasonably certain to suffer in the future. Because of the changes you have mentioned in their relationship, a loss of consortium claim appears reasonable for John to make. In deciding to make this type of claim they would both have to evaluate the loss and make a joint decision if they want to discuss the changes in their relationship with attorneys and potentially a jury. It can be very private and sometimes, despite the validity of the claim, couples elect not to proceed with it. Alternative forces that change the relationship and/or pre-existing issues, if any, would need to be openly discussed with counsel to make a more complete recommendation in proceeding with a loss of consortium claim before any litigation is commenced. It is also important to note, that despite the similarities of the companionship, care, comfort, society etcetera in the relationship between parents and children, a loss of consortium claim is only available to married spouses. Jane and John’s children would not be able to make a claim for the changes in their relationship with their mother because of her injuries. 

Now, separate and apart from the legal claims Jane and John may elect to bring, there are many additional resources you can help your friend locate. Throughout the state, and nationally there are numerous support groups for both traumatic brain injury patients and their families. First, your friend can check with his health insurance coverage. The insurance provider’s website may direct him to support groups, literature, or individualized help. John can also look to the county level, as most counties have resources for injured persons. To demonstrate the breadth of options, San Francisco General Hospital as well as many private local hospitals run a Traumatic Brain Injury support group that meets weekly/monthly. The Brain Injury Association of California educates and provide many resources for survivors, caretakers, family, friends and others. As well, the National Alliance of Mental Illness has many resources for brain injury survivors and their families. Many of these resources are available now, despite the pandemic, through video conferencing.

Your friend should evaluate the options and figure out with his spouse, which if any of these groups, organizations and resources may aid them, as this decision is an individual one to be made by your friend and his spouse based on their families’ needs.  

As a friend it is wonderful you are there to support him, listen and help when he needs it. We are very sorry for the loss your friend’s family is enduring, and wish him the best in locating resources that will help his family forge their way forward.

***

Disclaimer: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) outbreak is an ongoing, rapidly developing situation and the local, state, and federal responses are changing regularly. The Dolan Law Firm takes efforts to keep the information on this page updated, however, to guarantee up to date information it is necessary to confirm with publicly-available federal, state and local health organization guidance and government mandates.

read more

Is Anyone To Blame If Customers Drink Too Much?

Written By Christopher Dolan and Taylor French

Debra M. from Daly City writes:
I have often noticed people serving alcohol to individuals who had too much to drink. Are there certain laws that can hold people accountable for providing alcohol to people who are clearly intoxicated and should probably stop drinking? 

Dear Debra: As the COVID-19 era’s restrictions ease and we gradually return to our lives outside of the home, it is important to be mindful of the threat posed by intoxicated drivers on the road. Too often, tragedy strikes, and an innocent person is injured or killed by a driver who was overserved at their local bar, restaurant, or other social gathering. When this happens, the question of whom can be held civilly liable presents itself. 

Unfortunately for victims and their families, California law prohibits holding someone civilly liable for having overserved alcohol to an adult, which subsequently led to an injury or death. This is commonly referred to as Dram Shop Immunity, in the case of commercial vendors, such as bars, liquor stores, restaurants, etc.; or Social Host Immunity if involving a private individual. While overserving alcohol to an adult may result in an arrest and misdemeanor conviction, punishable by less than one year in jail, the individual or business cannot be liable for the monetary harms and damages suffered as a result of the adult’s actions.

Why does California law prohibit civil liability under these circumstances? Because, according to the Legislature and established case law, “the consumption of alcoholic beverages rather than the serving of alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted on others by an intoxicated person.” In other words, the drinker not the pourer is the responsible party.

However, Dram Shop Immunity and Social Host Immunity do not necessarily apply in the case of serving alcohol to a minor. If a business overserves a minor who was “obviously intoxicated,” which led to an injury or death, it can face civil liability for damages suffered as a result. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 25602.1,

“a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered injury or death against any person licensed, or required to be licensed, … who sells, furnishes, gives or causes to be sold, furnished or given away any alcoholic beverage … to any obviously intoxicated minor where the furnishing, sale or giving of that beverage to the minor is the proximate cause of the personal injury or death sustained by that person.”

For the purposes of section 25602.1, the term “minor” refers to an individual under the age of 21. 

A supplier of alcohol must use reasonable care to ensure the patron receiving the alcoholic beverage is not an obviously intoxicated minor. It is not enough for the supplier to simply know that the minor had been drinking. The minor must actually appear drunk. The courts consider many factors to determine whether the minor was “obviously intoxicated” when served the alcohol. These include whether the minor had alcohol on his or her breath, incoherent or slurred speech, poor muscular coordination, a staggering or unsteady walk or loss of balance, a flushed face, bloodshot or glassy eyes, an unkempt appearance, or loud, boisterous, or argumentative conduct. The determination is made by “a reasonable person having normal powers of observation.”

In the case of a “social host,” Civil Code section 1714 provides for civil claims

“against a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence to a person whom he or she knows, or should have known, to be under 21 years of age, in which case, … the furnishing of the alcoholic beverage may be found to be the proximate cause of resulting injuries or death.”

In other words, the minor need not be obviously intoxicated for the social host to face liability. The social host only needs to have known, or should have known, that the minor was indeed under 21.   

California law provides for this exception involving minors for number of reasons:

  1. Minors generally have less experience as it relates to both drinking and driving compared to adults and therefore require further safeguards
  2. It is foreseeable that serving alcohol to an intoxicated minor will result in his or her increased or continued inebriation, which may result in damages, whereas it is not necessarily foreseeable in the case of an adult. 

Regardless of potential liability, it is important that we stay vigilant, as drunk drivers will inevitably be out on the road. Equally important, however, is that we are proactive in preventing ourselves and others from driving after having too much to drink. Always arrange for a designated driver, taxi, or rideshare service for yourself and your friends. Remember, nothing is worth getting behind the wheel after drinking too much.  

***

Disclaimer: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) outbreak is an ongoing, rapidly developing situation and the local, state, and federal responses are changing regularly. The Dolan Law Firm takes efforts to keep the information on this page updated, however, to guarantee up to date information it is necessary to confirm with publicly-available federal, state and local health organization guidance and government mandates.

read more