Preclude Mrs. Fleshman's Claim For Negligent Liability Case Study

This is a case about promises and accountability. It is not about opening the flood gates of liability for any social host who dares to have a party. The issue at hand is whether liability arises from two entirely separate sources of duty with the same set of facts. It can. Those who make promises should be held to account from those promises, whether or not someone had a beer to drink.
Section 2.03(c) does not preclude Ms. Fleshman’s claim for negligent undertaking because section 2.03(3) applies only to those responsible for providing alcohol to others. First, the Radcliffes were not providing alcohol to the party, in fact they made no affirmative action to make alcohol available, and so do not fall under the purview of the statute. Second,
Social host liability arises out of the defendant’s status as a social host, whereas negligent undertaking targets the failure of the defendant to keep a promise. One can be a social host without ever making a promise, taking her outside of the realm of negligent undertaking. In this case, it is the Radcliffes’ duty, not their status as social hosts that creates their liability.

I. Section 2.03(c) Does Not Preclude Ms. Fleshman’s Claim for Negligent Undertaking.

The scope of the Dram Shop Act is designed to cover those who deliberately make alcohol available to others, which the Radcliffes did not do. They cannot now claim protection from an act when all along their intentions were the exact opposite. Dram Shop Act claims, social host liability, and negligent undertaking claims arise from fundamentally different sources and cover different areas of the law.
A. A Plain-Text Reading of the Dram Shop Act Does Not Preclude Ms. Fleshman’s
Providing is a word that connotes some deliberate, affirmative to action to make something available. Nothing in this would preclude the Radcliffes from shielding themselves with this statute. Providing implies some affirmative action on the part of the Radcliffes that they simply did not exhibit. Because the Radcliff’s actions do not meet any definition of providing, the “exclusivity” language does not apply in this case and does not preclude Ms. Fleshman’s negligent undertaking claim.
Moreover, providing is defined as “the action of the word provide.” Providing, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2nd ed. 1989). Provide was defined at the time of the statute as “to furnish or supply.” Provide, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2nd ed. 1989). The Radcliffes neither furnished nor supplied the alcohol at the party, and so they did not provide it. Because the Radcliffes did not provide alcohol, they were not providing alcohol, and so Ms. Fleshman’s claim is not precluded under section