Does anybody know about this new law in Connecticut?

Question

I am having a party at my house(which I own) for New Years eve. I heard that there is a new law that just passed in CT that says if I have someone at my house that drinks at my house and leaves and gets into an accident or gets a standard DUI there will be a good chance I can be held liable. If the person gets into an accident and creates a lot of damage my home can be used as a way to pay for the damage. Is this true?

Answer 1

No idea if that is the law in CT.

There are laws -- both statutes and judge made law (called "common law") -- throughout the U.S. that define "social host liability." The short answer is that a "social host" i.e. the person throwing a party, can be held liable for the negligent acts of his guests under certain circumstances.

So, in some states, if a host has an open bar and lets people drink and drink and drink, and then a drunk guest leaves and gets into a car accident. The victim of the accident can sue the drunk driver and the social host. THe host's assets -- such as a house -- can be used to pay a judgment.

Answer 2

It's common - not sure about CT.

One way around it would be to make it a BYOB party.

Another way is to hire a bonded caterer to serve - that way they get primary responsibility. Don't know if you can get one on four days notice, but...

But if you're just offering free all-you-can-drink champagne, then yes, you could easily be liable (and if it's not free, and you're not licensed, that's even worse - but I'm guessing you want to host a party, not charge for an event).

Answer 3

Then basically criminals could have weapons, those with out badges and ones with badges. Gun bans won't give up this, in actuality it will boost this. people who try this would possibly not could be bothered approximately those with the flexibility to guard themselves. I stay in Vermont, if somebody got here right into a school in Vermont like that, it may be suicide. Vermonters are the terrific armed voters in the U. S. and the main secure state. that is because of the fact armed voters can guard themselves and Vermonters are greater suitable than prepared to shelter themselves and their families. If basically regulation enforcement have weapons, there is not any risk-free practices against regulation enforcement. they could have countless capability and a brilliant form of will employ it. voters would be sitting geese for the capability hungry law enforcement officials. basically a pair of years in the past in Vermont, a close-by cop became mad at a "suspect"( who had carried out no longer something), and desperate to shoot the guy 6 circumstances, 3 in the returned (apparently in the returned first). this could grow to be uncomplicated or maybe common if stupid human beings such as you have your way. you're making the stupid assertion that that is going to likely be harder to get weapons off the black industry, this is ridiculous. it somewhat is "unlawful" to sell weapons on the black industry, however the sales take place continously. there have been distinctive circumstances whilst weapons have been illegally bought via law enforcement officials out of confiscated weapons. If a individual needs a gun to try this, they gets them one way or yet another.

Answer 4

Here's an idea: don't let your drunk party guests drive home. If you follow this advice, you're sure to be within the law, no matter what the law is, and you won't have it on your conscience that you potentially contributed to a drunk driving accident.