Parissis v Bourke

The appeal in *Parissis v Bourke* concerned the liability of householders for injuries sustained by a guest at a barbecue party they hosted. The plaintiff, aged 17, was injured when a fireball erupted from a barbecue that guests were attempting to reignite late at night. The householders had permitted their 18-year-old son to host the party, and while they were present for part of the evening, they left and returned later, believing the party to be in order. The injury occurred when guests retrieved methylated spirits from the garage and poured them onto the smouldering barbecue in an attempt to relight it, causing an explosion.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the householders owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether they breached that duty, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the risk of injury from the manner in which the barbecue was reignited was reasonably foreseeable to the householders. The court also considered, by reference to US and Canadian case law, the concept of "social host liability."

The Court of Appeal determined that the householders did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because the risk of injury arising from the guests' actions in attempting to reignite the barbecue with methylated spirits was not reasonably foreseeable. The court reasoned that while the householders had taken some precautions, such as supplying light beer and food, the specific actions that led to the injury – the unsupervised retrieval and use of methylated spirits to reignite a barbecue late at night by guests – were not something they could have reasonably anticipated. The court found that the householders had no knowledge of the methylated spirits being used for this purpose and that their departure from the party did not create a situation where such an event was foreseeable.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reversing the award of damages made by the District Court. The householders were therefore not found liable for the plaintiff's injuries.