Reference no: EM133164198
Stewart v. Pettie
Overview
On December 8, 1985, Gillian Stewart, her husband, Keith Stewart, her brother, Stuart (Stu) Pettie and his wife, Shelley Pettie, went to Stage West - a dinner theatre in Edmonton, Alberta - for a dinner and live performance. Before the evening was finished, tragedy struck; after leaving Stage West at the end of the performance, the group was involved in a minor, single-vehicle accident that left Gillian Stewart a quadriplegic.
The Case
Gillian Stewart and her sister-in-law, Shelley Pettie, were both employees of Dispensaries Ltd. For its 1985 Christmas party, Dispensaries Ltd. paid the price of admission for its employees and their spouses and friends to attend a performance at Stage West, a dinner theatre in Edmonton. The admission price included dinner and the performance - it did not include alcohol.
The two sisters-in-law, together with their husbands, went to the theatre together in Stu Pettie's car. Stu Pettie was driving. They arrived at the theatre at around 6 p.m. and were seated by a host at a table selected from a group of tables that had been set aside for the 60 guests of Dispensaries Ltd. The dinner theatre was organized with a full buffet dinner and was to be followed, at 7:45 p.m., by a three-act play.
Cocktail servers provided table service of alcohol. The Stewart-Pettie table was served by the same person all night. The cocktail servers took drink orders during dinner, before the play started and during the two intermissions. No orders were taken while the play was in progress.
At the end of the night, a running total of all alcohol ordered and consumed was presented for payment to the Stewart-Pettie group. Stu Pettie and Keith Stewart each ordered several drinks over the course of the evening - they started with drinks before dinner and went on to order drinks after dinner (but before the first act) and during each of the two intermissions. The wives had no alcohol. The wives were present at the table during the entire course of the evening - while the drinks were ordered, served and consumed. Later, Gillian Stewart's testimony demonstrated that she was aware, at least in general terms, of the amount that Stu Pettie had to drink during the evening. Stu Pettie was drinking "double" rum-and-Cokes. Later, the trial judge found that he had consumed five to seven of these drinks - the equivalent of 10 to 14 ounces of liquor. The trial judge also found that despite the amount he had to drink, Stu Pettie showed no signs of intoxication. However, this was deceiving - he was intoxicated by the end of the evening.
The group left the dinner theatre around 11 p.m. Once out in the parking lot, they talked amongst themselves to determine whether or not Stu Pettie was fit to drive, given that he had been drinking. Neither his wife (Shelley), nor his sister (Gillian) - who acknowledged that she knew what her brother was like when he was drinking - had any concerns about letting Stu Pettie drive. So all four people got into the car and started on their way home - with Stu Pettie driving, Keith Stewart in the front passenger seat and their spouses, Shelley and Gillian (respectively) in the back seat.
There had been a frost that night that had made the roads unusually slippery. The trial judge found that Stu Pettie was driving slower than the speed limit (50 km/hour in a 60 km/hour zone) and the judge also accepted the evidence that Gillian said he was driving properly, safely and cautiously.
Still, despite exercising caution, Stu Pettie lost momentary control of the vehicle - and the car swerved to the right, hopped a curb and struck a light pole and a noise abatement (that ran alongside the road).
Three of four people in the vehicle suffered no serious injuries. Gillian Stewart, however, was not wearing a seat belt and was thrown across the car where she struck her head and was rendered quadriplegic.
An expert at trial provided testimony that if Gillian had been wearing a seat belt - which, it should be noted, was not required by law in Alberta at that time - her injuries would have been prevented.
About an hour after the accident, Stu Pettie registered a blood alcohol reading of .19 and .20. The trial judge found that although it was not clear what his blood alcohol content would have been at the time of the accident - with blood alcohol readings done an hour after the incident producing .19 and .20, he was, without a doubt, intoxicated and it was safe to assume that his blood alcohol content at the time of the accident would have been over .10
- Do you think Gillian is contributorily liable? Why - or why not?
- In general, do you agree that an establishment can be found liable for the actions of its guests after they leave the premises? Why - or why not?