Delfino v. Griffo, 150 N.M. 97

Plaintiff Gina Delfino, individually and as personal representative of Manuel Delfino's estate, sued multiple pharmaceutical reps and bar owners/operators after a drunk driver killed Delfino's son and injured others.
The driver, Alicia Gonzales, had consumed alcohol for hours with pharmaceutical representatives Griffo, Donahue, and Paz during an off-site luncheon and continued drinking at several bars.
The reps allegedly organized, paid for, and accompanied Gonzales during the luncheon and bar-hopping, with their employers’ policies endorsing entertaining physicians and staff to promote business.
Plaintiff asserted 21 counts, including common-law negligence, recklessness under the Liquor Liability Act, negligent hiring/retention/training, and various tort theories against both the reps/employers and the bar defendants.
The district court dismissed the Pharmaceutical Defendants under Rule 1-012(B)(6) for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals certified the issue to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
This Court reversed, holding that the Pharmaceutical Defendants may be social hosts under the Liquor Liability Act, remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Liquor Liability Act allow social-host liability outside private settings?	Delfino argues social hosts may be liable even when hosting in licensed establishments.	Pharmaceuticals contend social-host liability is limited to private settings and not applicable when a licensee serves the alcohol.	Yes; social-host liability extends to hosts in licensed establishments.
Who qualifies as a social host under the Act in this context?	Reps who organized, paid for, and controlled the alcohol at a business luncheon are social hosts.	Only those who actually control service or provision of alcohol are social hosts; reps did not.	Social hosts include those who provide gratuitous alcohol in a social setting, including in licensed establishments, with control and recklessness considerations.
Is the Liquor Liability Act the exclusive remedy for social-host liability?	Act provides exclusive remedy for injuries caused by social hosts.	Act may not preclude common-law duties in this context.	Liquor Liability Act is the exclusive remedy where it applies.
Did the district court err by dismissing the Pharmaceutical Defendants for failure to state a claim?	Complaint properly pleaded social-host liability under the Act.	No duty under the Act or common law; no claim stated.	District court erred; complaint states a claim against Pharmaceutical Defendants as social hosts.

Lopez v. Maez, 98 N.M. 625, 651 P.2d 1269 (1982) (drinking and driving foreseeability informs dram shop doctrine)
Baxter v. Noce, 107 N.M. 48, 752 P.2d 240 (1988) (transition to Liquor Liability Act post-Lopez)
Chavez v. Desert Eagle Distributing Co. of New Mexico, 141 P.3d 77 (2007) (Court of Appeals on social-host duties and control over liquor service)
Solberg v. Johnson, 760 P.2d 870 (Or. 1988) (definition of social host includes those who provide/serve alcohol in various settings)
Born v. Mayers, 514 N.W.2d 687 (North Dakota 1994) (social host liability for gratuitous alcohol in a bar context)