‘Social hosts,’ beware the booze you serve to minors

California lawmakers have long resisted efforts by the courts to hold those who serve alcohol liable for the damage inflicted by drunk drivers. State law includes broad shields for both bartenders and “social hosts” who serve booze at parties to intoxicated people who then wreak havoc on the roads. Now, the state Supreme Court is considering whether the shield should be a bit less broad for hosts who furnish alcohol to minors. It should be.

Under a 1978 state law, liability for any injuries or deaths caused by a drunk driver rests with the driver, not the source of the liquor. The Legislature made one exception: Businesses and individuals that sell alcohol to an “obviously intoxicated minor” are liable if their actions were the proximate cause of an injury. The case pending before the Supreme Court stems from the death of 19-year-old Andrew Ennabe, a Cal State Fullerton student killed by an intoxicated 20-year-old driver, Thomas Garcia. The collision happened just after they left an alcohol-fueled party in Diamond Bar thrown by then-20-year-old Jessica Manosa at a vacant rental property her parents owned.

Ennabe’s parents sued Manosa and her parents, arguing that the state’s liability shield shouldn’t apply. Manosa wasn’t really a social host, they said, because she imposed a cover charge on uninvited guests, then used the money to defray the cost of the alcohol served. A state appeals panel disagreed, saying in effect that a social host was anyone not trying to make a profit off of drink sales. The Supreme Court now has the chance to impose a reasonable limit on host immunity by ruling that it doesn’t extend to those who serve alcohol to underage strangers — as Manosa did — in exchange for cash at the door.

State lawmakers addressed part of the problem after Ennabe’s death, widening the potential liability for serving underage drinkers. Under that 2010 law, anyone over age 18 who “knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence” to an underage drinker can be held liable if it results in injury or death. That’s a fine standard, but why should there have to be a tragedy before there is some kind of penalty for hosts who serve underage drinkers, as there is for bars? And why should liability be limited to those who throw parties in their homes?

Some local governments are wrestling with those issues, adopting ordinances that penalize social hosts for furnishing alcohol to underage drinkers regardless of whether anyone winds up injured. Those ordinances aren’t common, but they help make an important point: Behind every underage drinker is someone who should have known better. That point shouldn’t be obscured by overly broad limits on liability and permissive rules for those who serve alcohol in a social setting.