Prom Night: Special Problems

During typical prom weekends in 2005, 290 young people ages 15-20 were killed in alcohol-related crashes—of those 198 deaths involved a 15-20-year-old impaired driver.

Alcohol is the No. 1 drug problem among youth killing more young people than all other illicit drugs combined. More than 6,000 young people die each year due to underage drinking-related causes. In 2005, 2,035 15-20 year olds were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes—an average of six deaths per day. Of those deaths, 1,387 youth aged 15-20 died in crashes involving a 15-20-year-old alcohol-impaired driver.

Tenn. Code Ann. §57-4-203(b) (2002) makes it illegal for minors to purchase alcohol and for any person to sell or furnish a minor with alcohol and Tenn. Code Ann. §57-5-301(e)(1)(2002) makes it illegal for minors to possess beer “for any purpose”.

For parents who sponsor post-prom events, Tennessee's alcohol laws deserve study.

Having a party for prom goers makes one a "social host" in the eyes of the law. A social host furnishing alcoholic beverages is immune from both fault and liability under Tenn. Code Anno. §57-10-101 . However, in limited circumstances such as those found in Biscan v. Brown , a duty of care to protect underage guests from harm lies separate and apart from furnishing alcohol.

A social host, who allows a minor to consume alcohol on his premises, even though he did not furnish alcoholic beverages, has an affirmative duty to act because of the “special relationship doctrine.”

Public policy is considered in determining whether a duty exists under the “special purpose doctrine”. Such considerations include the legislature’s determination that minors are generally prohibited from consuming alcohol , the prohibition for persons under the influence of alcohol from driving , the care required for minors due to their immaturity and inexperience relative to adults, and the voluntary assumption of supervision, custody and control of a visiting child.

When a host establishes a rule that any minor guest who consumes alcohol in his home is required to spend the night with the intention to prevent minors who had been drinking from leaving the party, the forseeability of harm to such minors and others is proven by the host’s recognition of the need for the rule in the first place and supports a finding of a special relationship.

A finding of a “special relationship” also requires proof of “means and ability to control”. “An adult host who is ‘in charge’ of a party held for minors . . . certainly has some ability to control the conduct of his guests.”

Whether or not a person has assumed a duty to act is a question of law.

“Because he knowingly permitted and facilitated the consumption of alcohol by minors, an illegal act, Worley had a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent his guests from harming third persons or from befalling harm themselves.” By establishing his “rule” and then failing to enforce his “rule”, Worley assumed a duty of care to all the minor guests attending the party and then breached that duty by failing to ensure intoxicated guests did not leave the party.

Prom night presents special problems for concerned parents. The Faulk house went through dilemmas for about four years. Do we provide a safe post-prom environment for our teenagers and their friends and assume some risk knowing there may be some teenagers who will have consumed alcoholic beverages before arrival at our home? Or, do we eliminate personal liability by having no post-prom party at our house taking a chance on the venue of choice of our own children during those dangerous hours immediately after the prom ends?

As it relates to teenagers, there is no easy answer. The lawyer in me must tell you, "no party". In those prom years past, the Dad in me said "provide them with a safe place".