Fast Times at Lanigan High - Is It Worth it ?

The Lanigan Safe Grad story has blown into a huge media storm of mass proportion.All kinds of media including this blog,Saskboys Abandoned Stuff,a CBC television report, major Canadian newspapers,international media and talk radio from coast to coast are discussing the concept and legality of "Safe Grad". As Jim Lahey may say, " it's a shit storm , with shit ropes and shit hawks riding the shit wind".
The residents of Lanigan are peeved that their decision to host a binge party for beginners is being singled out and have protested in droves.Safe Grad proponents are convinced that supervised drinking by responsible adults is the only way to protect "kids"from the consequences of binge drinking.
The nomination for "Bad Parents" of the year is unjustified.

Let's set aside the usual arguments surrounding the issue and examine Safe Grad's from a new perspective specifically risk,liability and responsibility.

Parental Responsibility

As a parent, can I be criminally charged for permitting my child to drink alcohol outside of my home ?
The law can be interpreted in many ways,case law sets the precedent for legal decisions.The law clearly states it's illegal to purchase alcohol for minors or serve a child who is not yours' alcohol, .
Maybe the Safe Grad will be incident free but the next enabled party could find you being charged.I'm sure a large order of alcohol from the local beer or liquor store could be tracked to the party property one way or another.Your fellow PTA'ers may be all gangsta wit you until the police are interviewing your homey friends about "who supplied the juice.
Could your signature on the permission form create the piece of evidence which convicts you of child abuse if your child or another teen partier is harmed because of your "negligence".


I would be mortified to serve alcohol to my teen and her friends and watch them get stupid.

Who is going to pretend that the lil darlings are going to have one or two glasses of chardonnay and discuss politics,religion and the Stanley Cup playoffs.
What's the entire point of the party? PARTY !
What eighteen year old wants their parent at a party,handing out drinks and watching your best friend blow chunks of Junior Mints and Lemon Gin and Wink ?
Who in their right mind would want to chaperon ?
See above Youtube video and assess your tolerance.

School Board Liability

It has come to my attention that a certain "Safe Grad" committee has held meetings on school property .The Safe Grad Committee distributed permission forms which include an alcoholic drink order form.Despite lipservice to a "division policy",
it seems that school administration may be negligent enforcing this policy.


Law Enforcement
RCMP are refusing to intervene in this event and choosing to take a "don't ask,don't tell attitude".
It's not legal to serve alcohol to minors, unless you as the parent is serving the booze.

I'm not sure that permission forms cut it.While we're at it,since when can you sell alcohol to minors ? Is " contribution to a delinquency of a minor" a factor
here ?
The RCMP is adamant that no federal,provincial or municipal laws are being broken,I guess they interpret the law a bit differently out west than in other parts of the country. I'm hoping that no one at this event will be charged with a DUI and am sure that there will be a couple of cruisers parked at the boundary of the event.
No one will get hurt or die in a motor vehicle accident from driving to or from the party on the night of the Lanigan Safe Grad.
This night will be an exception until the day when your underage teen decides to drink without you.
Stats prove that a teen has a higher probability of developing into an alcoholic if parents permit or enable underage drinking.This defeats the myth that children of teetotallers or MADD advocates are more likely to engage in binge drinking.
Lets be real.
Enabling and supervising your child drinking underage hasn't worked.

Saskatchewan has the highest proportion of adolescent
drivers (age 16 to 19) who are fatally injured and
have BACs (blood alcohol contents) above the legal
limit. That comes out to 29 per cent of Canada’s total
fatalities.

If parental supervision of such events teach our teens to drink moderately and safely ,the above stats would read differently.

In any action, a wise person assesses the risk before taking any action.
Even if you win a civil or criminal action, can you afford the legal fee?
MADD produced a position paper entitled ,Alcohol,Teens and Catastrophe, What Every Parent Needs to Know About Avoiding Alcohol Liability.
R Solomons legal opinion scared me off of providing my home as a party house.

The article states,

" What will get me sued ?
• As a Provider of Alcohol: The law does not prevent you from
being a gracious host, and no one has ever been held liable for serving
alcohol responsibly.
Your potential liability as an alcohol provider begins when you serve,
give or make alcohol available to intoxicated individuals in circumstances
in which they pose a risk of harm to themselves or others. For
example, you may be held liable for serving alcohol to an obviously
intoxicated guest who you know is planning to drive. Individuals will
be considered intoxicated well before they become incoherent or completely
unable to take care of themselves. The courts will focus on
whether the individual displayed obvious signs of intoxication, such as
slurred speech, boisterous conduct or a lack of physical coordination.
As a provider, you may be held liable if your intoxicated guests
injure themselves or others on your property, on their way home and,
perhaps even until they regain sobriety at home. These
general principles will be applied more strictly in the case of
underage drinkers.
• As an Occupier: Even if you do not provide any alcohol, you may
be liable for alcohol-related injuries that occur on your property. The
term ‘occupier’ includes anyone in control of property who has the
power to admit or exclude entrants. For example, you would be considered
an occupier when hosting a party in your home, running a social at
your service club, or renting a hall for your daughter’s wedding.
Occupiers are not responsible for every injury that occurs on their
property. Rather, they can only be held liable if they are
negligent in maintaining the physical condition of the property, supervising
the conduct of their guests or controlling the activities on the
property.
The liability issue is often framed in terms of whether the
occupier took reasonable steps to prevent harm in the specific
circumstances.
• Expanding Liability: The scope of alcohol liability continues to
evolve and expand. For example, organizers of potentially
dangerous activities must take whatever measures are reasonably necessary
to prevent intoxicated individuals from participating. Employers
have been held liable for negligently failing to prevent alcohol-related
workplace injuries, and for alcohol-related injuries arising from negligently-
planned, managed or supervised company parties or other social
events. Parents, coaches, counsellors, police, and others in positions of
authority appear to have a broad duty to protect young people who are
or may be intoxicated.

1 Do not serve, provide or make alcohol
available to any person who is, or may be,
under the legal drinking age. Not only is
the conduct illegal (with few exceptions),
it will also adversely colour the courts’
perception of your conduct.
2 Do not permit drinking to be the focus of
the party or event. Do not permit drinking
competitions or other practices that
promote intoxication.

Liability for Activities on the Premises
Stringer v. Ashley
Stringer broke his neck diving from the Ashleys’ second-storey bedroom window
into their shallow swimming pool. He and several other guests had dived or
jumped into the pool between 10 and 22 times without incident. Mrs. Ashley had
warned Stringer, who had at least six drinks at the party, not to dive. However, the
jury held that it was not sufficient to simply warn Stringer, who was obviously
very intoxicated. According to the jury, Mrs. Ashley should have told Stringer to
leave, stopped the party or called for help to dissuade Stringer. Mr. Ashley was
held liable for failing to assist his wife. He should have asked Stringer to leave,
locked the bedroom door or otherwise prevented further diving. Although Stringer
was largely responsible for his own misfortune, the Ashleys were found 40% at
fault for Stringer’s $5,000,000 in damages and thus were held liable for
$2,000,000.
In the preceding cases, the specific danger was readily apparent to the occupier
during the event. However, occupiers may also have some responsibility for simply
allowing events to be held on their property that have, in the past, been associated
with violent, dangerous or irresponsible conduct. Indeed, this reasoning may
have prompted a $700,000 settlement in a case that arose from a “bush party”
hosted by the defendant’s son on the defendant’s farm. Bush parties commonly
involve underage drinking, severe intoxication, assaults, illicit drug use, and
impaired driving. The plaintiff in this case was left a quadriplegic following a
fight that he had initiated at the event while intoxicated. Apparently, previous
bush parties on the farm had also resulted in numerous problems. No formal invitations had been issued to the 300 youths who attended, nor did the defendant or
his son provide any alcohol. The plaintiff sued the defendant as an occupier for
merely allowing an event to be held on his property that he knew or ought to have
known posed foreseeable risks of injury to those attending.

(ii) Liability for the Conduct of the Entrants
McGinty v. Cook
A conservation authority was held liable for over $210,000 after the McGinty
family was assaulted by intoxicated youths. Although the park was advertised as a
quiet family campground, the staff largely ignored the McGintys’ complaints
about the youths’ noisy party. Later that evening, Paul McGinty was attacked
when he responded to cries for help from the party. The intoxicated youths then
viciously assaulted Gregory McGinty. The conservation authority was held liable
as an occupier for negligently failing to control the assailants’ conduct. Despite
previous incidents with the group that summer and a violent confrontation earlier
that evening, the staff did not eject the assailants or take any other steps to protect
the other campers. The court stated that, at a minimum, the police should have
been called earlier in the evening and the quiet time should have been strictly
enforced.

i) Liability for the Condition of the Premises
Chretien v. Jensen
The Jensens lived on an island connected to the mainland by a bridge that they
had responsibility for building, maintaining and repairing. The bridge, which was
about 20 feet above the river bed, had a low guardrail made of logs, but no
handrails or lights. As they had often done, the Jensens allowed their adult children
to host a party for their friends, who brought and consumed their own alcohol.
As in the past, the bridge was the gathering place for much of the socializing.
Late in the evening, the plaintiff, who was very intoxicated, fell from the bridge
onto a raft moored below and was rendered a paraplegic. The court held that the
Jensens breached their standard of care as occupiers, because the bridge was
unsafe for such alcohol-related gatherings. In particular, the court was critical of
the low guardrail and lack of handrails. Since the plaintiff was 40% contributorily
negligent, the Jensens were held liable for 60% of the plaintiff’s losses.


Private hosts and providers should assume that they may be
held liable for giving, serving or making alcohol available to a person who they
know or ought to know is intoxicated, particularly if there is reason to believe that
he or she may be driving. Moreover, the courts will likely apply more stringent
principles of liability in cases involving underaged drinkers.

Some courts have equated the
term “intoxication” with a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) of
0.08% – the level at which it
becomes a federal criminal offence to
drive. Nevertheless, the successful
claims have typically involved
drinkers whose BACs were double or
more this level. It is reasonable to
assume, however, that the courts will
adopt a lower BAC threshold for
underaged, inexperienced or otherwise
vulnerable drinkers.


Parents would not be held liable for the injuries
caused by an 18-year-old who was no longer living at home
unless they somehow facilitated, encouraged or participated
in the conduct causing the harm. Similar principles
apply to teachers, coaches, counsellors and others
who work with children and young adults.
( read the organizers of the event, parents signing permission forms allowing their child to purchase alcohol from another parent,school board for allowing event planning to take place on school property or forms to be distributed at the school)
There are two major types of alcohol-related claims. First, you may be held
liable for providing alcohol to intoxicated individuals who then injure themselves
or others. Second, even if you provide no alcohol, you may be held liable as an
occupier for any alcohol-related injuries that occur on your property. While the
courts will be more critical of alcohol-related events involving underaged youth,
this will likely be viewed as only one factor in determining liability."

If your sorry ass is ever charged or sued,expect a hefty bump in your insurance premium,the chance that no insurance company will ever cover you ever again, and the cost of a civil suit which isn't covered by any insurance company. Why take the risk

Is it worth it ?: