Ennabe v. Manosa, 168 Cal. Rptr. 3d 440

Background

In April 2007 Jessica Manosa hosted a large, mostly under-21 party at a rental house she occupied; she supplied alcohol but had no liquor license.
An uninvited, underage, visibly intoxicated guest (Garcia) was charged an entrance fee ($3–$20) by a bouncer; payment entitled guests to help themselves to the drinks Manosa provided.
Garcia, while intoxicated, later drove and ran over decedent Andrew Ennabe, who later died; plaintiffs sued Manosa (and parents) for wrongful death, negligence, premises liability, and liability under Bus. & Prof. Code §25602.1.
Defendants moved for summary judgment invoking social-host immunity (Civ. Code §1714(c); Bus. & Prof. Code §25602(b)); trial court granted judgment and Court of Appeal affirmed. Supreme Court granted review.
The central factual dispute relevant on summary judgment: whether charging an entrance fee that provided access to alcohol constituted a “sale” (or caused a sale) to an obviously intoxicated minor under §25602.1.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §25602.1 (in the ABC Act) apply to private/noncommercial hosts?	§25602.1’s final category (“any other person”) includes private hosts; ABC Act covers noncommercial situations.	Placement in Bus. & Prof. Code shows it targets businesses; social-host matters belong in Civ. Code immunity.	Applied to private hosts: statute’s language and other ABC provisions show it can reach noncommercial persons.
Does charging an entrance fee that grants access to drinks constitute a “sale” under §25602.1 and §23025?	Entrance fee that gives access to alcohol is consideration; constitutes a sale (or causing a sale) under §23025’s definition ("any transaction" for "any consideration").	No sale occurred at fee payment; title to particular drinks did not transfer when fee paid; unclear who held title; thus no §25602.1 liability.	Charging an admission fee that gives access to provided alcohol can constitute a sale (or causing a sale) under §23025 and §25602.1; triable issue exists.
Does a “sale” under §23025 require profit or commercial intent?	Sale need not be profitable; definition is any transaction for any consideration—profit not required.	A sale should imply commercial gain; otherwise statute would swallow the distinction between "sell" and "furnish."	No profit/commercial-gain requirement; consideration need not produce profit and sale is distinct from mere gratuitous furnishing.
Was summary judgment appropriate on these facts?	Plaintiffs produced evidence (viewed favorably) that fee enabled access to alcohol consumed by an obviously intoxicated minor whose intoxication proximately caused death.	Defendant entitled to immunity as a social host; no sale proved.	Reverse: summary judgment improperly granted; pleadings raised triable fact issue whether Manosa sold (or caused sale of) alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor under §25602.1.

Key Cases Cited

Vesely v. Sager, 5 Cal.3d 153 (recognizing vendor liability for serving an obviously intoxicated person)
Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club, 16 Cal.3d 313 (broadening modern negligence-based vendor liability beyond statutory misdemeanor theory)
Coulter v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.3d 144 (extending potential liability to noncommercial social hosts)
Strang v. Cabrol, 37 Cal.3d 720 (discussing the 1978 legislative abrogation of Vesely/Bernhard/Coulter and the narrow exception in §25602.1)
Cory v. Shierloh, 29 Cal.3d 430 (upholding 1978 statutory scheme and highlighting the license-status distinction under original §25602.1)
Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal.4th 758 (summary-judgment standard: view evidence favorably to nonmoving party)