Law Assignment 1 Portfolio

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Stewart,

You have asked our law firm for advice as to whether you are legally responsible for an intoxicated minor’s death, which occurred at a party at your residence near Hollywood, and alcohol was served. After reviewing the facts, you could be found free of any legal punishment by law. Although an entrance fee was required for some guests, in effect making them customers, not all guests were charged the entrance fee. Based on the facts of the case, the deceased minor did not pay an entrance fee. It would require the deceased minor’s representation to prove that you are liable in the death of the minor through the sale of alcohol on your premises or consumption. But, noting there is little to no evidence of such a sale, it would be nearly impossible to prove. The deceased minor’s representation will have to provide proof that the minor consumed alcohol at your residence as or had access to it as a customer and not a guest. The minor appeared to be intoxicated prior to the party and there is also no proof as to who provided the alcohol that the deceased may not have consumed.

Your son and his fraternity threw a party at a private residence near Hollywood, CA. Members of Theta Kappa Sigma sorority were invited as guests. The party was a free social event at which alcohol would be provided. Guests arrived to the house at around 10:00pm, and by 11:00pm, the small gathering had increased drastically in size.

There was not enough alcohol for the additional guests, so the first uninvited guests were told to pay $10 at the door or provide $10 worth of retail alcohol. Money and alcohol was collected at the door by members of the fraternity, who also acted as “bouncers”. Certain girls deemed attractive by the fraternity were not charged an entrance fee. Girls specifically from the Theta Kappa Gamma, were offered entrance if they “sexy shotgun” a beer in lieu of the $10.

As more people attended, several fraternity members left to purchase more alcohol with the funds they received from the entrance fee. The party did not make any profits, as all the money paid by guest was spent on purchasing additional alcohol, and several fraternity members possibly kept some of the proceeds for themselves.

The party ended around 3:00am after a noise complaint. When the police arrived they made the fraternity members aware that there had been a car accident a block away from the party.

When the host and friends went to see the accident site, one of the fraternity members acknowledged that the women in the vehicle were at the party, intoxicated, and underage. Tom’s friends also stated that he allowed entrance to the girls involved in the accident for free because they were “really hot chicks”. As members of Theta Kappa Sigma the passengers were invited guests based on attraction and was not charged the entry fee. They also appeared to be intoxicated prior to arriving at the party.

Several days later, one of the women was pronounced dead. She was the daughter of the Student Affairs Dean of the university to which the fraternity belongs. The Dean already has expressed disapproval with the fraternity’s behavior prior to this recent incident.

The law in California suggests that liability can be faced if one knowingly serves alcohol to someone who is underage and if alcohol is sold to someone who is underage, leading to an injury or accident. Evidence of sale would also need be required in order to be found liable. Sale is defined as an exchange for goods or services for money or other approved payment methods such as, sexy shots. Sexy shots is defined as alcohol consumed off the the body of another individual. The exception to this broad law is that if an entrance fee was charged at the door and the injured or deceased guest paid, then the host could be liable for any injury sustained. This falls under the law of sales, as the entrance fee could be seen as sale of alcohol even if alcohol was not exchanged at the door.

The law comes from Faiez Ennabe v. Carlos Manosa, in which the daughter to Carlos Manosa hosted a party on April 27, 2007 at a vacant rental residence owned by her parents. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25602. (c); Civ. Code, § 1714, subs. (b.)) The total attendance was between 40 to 60 people, with most under the age of 21. The host provided $60 worth of alcohol. Two friends of the host also bought alcohol for the party using their own personal money.

When guests arrived to the party, those who were uninvited were charged an entrance fee of $3 to $5. The money made from the entrance fee was used to provide more alcohol. It is unclear whether guests provided their own alcohol or not.

The son of Faiez Ennabe later arrived as an invited guest and was intoxicated when he arrived. An uninvited guest, Garcia, arrived shortly after him, who was under 21 years of age, and also previously intoxicated. Garcia stated that he did not consume alcohol at the party and was soon asked to leave after offending several of the other guests. He was escorted by other guests, including Ennabe, to his car. One of the friends of the uninvited guest spit into the face of Ennabe, who subsequently chased Garcia into the street. Garcia was escorted to his car and was driving by this time, struck Ennabe. Ennabe later died due to injuries sustained.

Upon appeal, the court reversed the previous decision because Manosa was found to have charged the guest an entrance fee into the party, which allowed him access to alcohol. This entrance fee into the party acted as a sale though there was not exchange of alcohol at the door. Hence, qualifying Garcia as a customer, not a guest.

In regards to you, our clients, you are absolved of legal responsibility unless it can be proven that the girls did indeed become intoxicated due to the alcohol sold at your residence. There is no evidence of a sale or entrance fee giving the intoxicated minors access to the alcohol at the residence. There is also no evidence that the alcohol in which they consumed was at your residence in the first place. Even though uninvited guests were charged some sort of entrance fee it is unclear whether the deceased woman was charged an entrance fee or was an invited guest as part of her sorority. As was later stated by a friend of Tom, she was attractive enough to enter for free, in which case the sale of alcohol would not apply to her. Though cash does not need to be the only consideration for sale (Estate of Freeman (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 486, 489; see generally Civ. Code § 1605), she exchanged nothing. Additionally, when she arrived at the party, the liquor that was initially provided had been consumed. More alcohol was later purchased or brought by persons other than your son.

Based on the facts of this case, the women in the accident were guest and not customers. They consumed alcohol prior to reaching the party at your residence. Furthermore, the accident that they were in included only them and involved no other parties from the party, as in the Ennabe case. Based on the law and its definition of sale, unless the legal representation can show otherwise that the girls were in fact customers and consumed alcohol at your residence, you would be found free of any liability.

Sincerely,

__________