## Facts

- Albert Cabral hosted a party at his home on Maui and purchased and supplied alcoholic beverages for guests.
- Jaime M. Bumanglag attended the party and became intoxicated there.
- The parties stipulated that Cabral knew Bumanglag was intoxicated, continued serving him alcohol, knew Bumanglag intended to drive after leaving, and knew alcohol would impair Bumanglag’s driving ability.
- After leaving the party, Bumanglag drove a vehicle and collided with a Suzuki Samurai driven by Ellen Faulk, causing Faulk serious injuries.
- Bumanglag’s blood-alcohol level at the time of the collision was 0.15%, above the legal limit.
- Faulk sued Cabral (among other defendants named in the case caption) alleging Cabral’s conduct as a social host was negligent and was a legal cause of her injuries.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Cabral, concluding that as a non-liquor-licensee social host, Cabral was not liable in tort for injuries caused by his intoxicated adult guest’s driving.
- Faulk appealed and also challenged the trial court’s refusal to delay the summary judgment ruling to allow additional discovery.

## Issues

1. Whether a non-liquor-licensee social host has a non-statutory tort duty to protect third persons from injury and property damage caused by an intoxicated adult guest’s negligent driving after being served alcohol at the host’s home.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment without allowing additional time for discovery.

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in Cabral’s favor.
- The court held that Hawaiʻi law did not recognize a non-statutory tort duty imposing “social host liability” on a non-licensee for injuries caused by an intoxicated adult guest’s driving.
- The court also affirmed the denial of additional discovery time because the dispositive question was one of law and the material facts relevant to that question were already established by stipulation.

## Legal Principles

- Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court; even clear foreseeability does not, by itself, create a legal duty.
- Hawaiʻi’s statutory scheme regulating alcohol and imposing obligations on liquor licensees did not impose comparable civil liability on non-licensee social hosts for serving alcohol to adult guests.
- In the absence of a statute or controlling precedent recognizing civil liability for non-licensee social hosts, the court declined to create that duty through common-law negligence.
- Summary judgment is proper when, even assuming the plaintiff can prove foreseeability and causation, the defendant owed no duty recognized by law.
- A trial court’s decision to deny a continuance for further discovery in connection with summary judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion; where the controlling issue is legal and facts are stipulated, more discovery will not change the outcome.

## Conclusion

In *Faulk v. Suzuki Motor, Co. Ltd.*, the Hawaiʻi Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Albert Cabral, holding that a non-liquor-licensee social host owes no tort duty to third parties injured by an intoxicated adult guest’s negligent driving, and it further held that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying additional discovery because the duty question was purely legal on the stipulated facts.


Faulk v. Suzuki Motor, Co. Ltd., 851 P.2d 332 (1993)