MateNeutronBarracuda27
Alchimowicz v. City of Windsor et al. (January 6, 1997, Doc. No….
Alchimowicz v. City of Windsor et al. (January 6, 1997, Doc. No. 93-GD-23952, Windsor, Quinn J. (Ont. Gen. Div.))
Alchimowicz attended a birthday party for Paul. The party was held at Paul’s in-laws’ home. The host and guests were mostly co-workers at the Franchetti’s restaurant. Alchimowicz (the plaintiff) arrived at approximately 9:00 p.m. and drank heavily until about 1:00 a.m.
Some staff of Franchetti’s who worked that night did not arrive until after 1:30 a.m. The guests who arrived late included the defendants, Pat and Trevor. At about 3:00 a.m.,
Paul announced that the party was over and that it was time for everyone to leave. A number of guests gathered outside the house and decided to go to a nearby beach. Alchimowicz and the restaurant workers who had arrived late drove to the beach. Alchimowicz was the only person in the group who had been drinking excessively.
When the group arrived at the beach, Alchimowicz was asleep in the back of the car. The group left him there and walked to the beach. Before they reached the water, Alchimowicz ran past them, stripped to his shorts, and jumped in. He played in the water for a while before joining the others where they had gathered at the end of a dock.
When Alchimowicz had nearly reached the defendants, he knocked a pair of sandals into the water. He said that he would retrieve them. Trevor and Pat told him not to bother, but Alchimowicz climbed onto the railing, ignored a shouted warning, and dived.
The water was four feet deep. He slammed into the bottom and was rendered a quadriplegic. His blood alcohol level at the time of the accident was between 250 and 300 mg per 100 mL of blooda considerable amount.
Alchimowicz brought an action against the city (the owner of the dock), the host, each of the partyers at the beach, and the restaurant they worked for. None of the defendants knew how much Alchimowicz had drunk over the course of the evening.
In the reasonable view of the defendants who had been present, he had drunk a controlled amount. Alchimowicz contended that his friends owed him a duty not to take him to such a dangerous place given his state of inebriation.
The court determined that no such duty was owed by the defendants. If the duty was owed, Alchimowicz would have had to prove that the defendants knew of the extent of his intoxication. The defendants had not witnessed excessive drinking, had not supplied him with any alcohol, had not made him drive, and had not made him dive.
