As the season of festive cheer draws near, two recent Australian cases serve as a timely reminder that too much indulgence is not a good idea. Two different inebriates have been denied compensation for injuries suffered while under the influence.

In the NSW case of Parrington v Hotelcorp Pty Ltd and Ors [2003] NSWSC 724, the plaintiff was seriously injured when the car she was driving collided with a tree. The plaintiff had a blood alcohol level of approximately .118gms per 100 mls well in excess of the legal limit of .05gms per 100mls. She commenced legal proceedings claiming negligence against the owner and managers of the hotel that she was drinking at prior to the collision, claiming that they had breached a general duty of care owed to her. She alleged that the hotel and its management breached their duty to her by continuing to serve her alcohol when she was intoxicated and then failing to provide a safe means of transport home, knowingly allowing her to drive home when it was unsafe to do so. The plaintiff also gave evidence that she borrowed money from the hotel manager to continue drinking in the premises.

The Supreme Court heard evidence of the drinking activities of the plaintiff on the day in question. The plaintiff’s drinking continued from morning until approximately 8pm at night and involved several different venues throughout the day (the accident occurred at 8.20pm as the plaintiff was driving home from the defendant’s hotel). The plaintiff had attended the defendant’s hotel between 1.30pm and 3.00pm, and returned there at approximately 6.00pm until 7.30pm Witnesses testified that the plaintiff looked affected by alcohol but that her behaviour didn’t indicate that she suffered any obvious impairment or was considered to be “out of control”. It was also unclear to witnesses whether the plaintiff had exceeded the “legal limit” of blood alcohol content. The plaintiff herself admitted that she had driven while under the influence of alcohol on previous occasions.

The Court found in favour of the defendants denying that there was any breach of duty of care to the plaintiffs. The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s intoxication was the consequence of a “deliberate and voluntary decision” by her to drink to excess. The fact that she borrowed money from the hotel manager did not alter this position.

In a different case involving another unlucky inebriate, Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 146, a sergeant in the Australian Army suffered a knee injury after falling from a window of the second storey barracks where he lived. The fall occurred at the sergeant’s home after he had attended a function at the Sergeant’s Mess earlier in the night where he had drunk beer for about four hours.

In seeking benefits under s70 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), the sergeant claimed that his knee injury was “defence-caused” and he should receive compensation in relation to it. The Repatriation Commission, the Veteran’s Review Board, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and, ultimately, the Federal Court of Australia upheld the decision that the injury was not caused as a result of the sergeant’s employment and his claims were denied. Claims by the sergeant that he was obliged to attend the functions in the Sergeant’s Mess and that his injury occurred while on 24-hour call at the Army barracks were not accepted. The Court upheld the findings of the reviewing tribunals in stating that the sergeant’s attendance at the function and his excessive consumption of alcohol at the function was not related in any relevant way to his defence service. “His attendance at the function was a matter for the applicant, as was the extent of his alcohol consumption.”

These cases provide a sobering reminder as we approach the season of office parties and longer lunches. Plan a season of good cheer it is YOUR responsibility.