The Supreme Judicial Court holds oral arguments in appellate cases from September to May, typically during the first week of each month. WGBH's Morning Edition Anchor Joe Mathieu joined Legal Analyst and Northeastern Law Professor Daniel Medwed to discuss what's on the November docket. The following transcript has been edited for clarity.
Joe Mathieu: Let's take a look at the docket for November. What are the most significant case on tap that you're looking at?
Daniel Medwed: Well, the one that caught my eye is a civil case, where a man drove his car into Boston, left it with a valet, went to a restaurant, had a lot to drink — he was actually cut off by the restaurant — but the valet attendant gave him back his keys. He got in his car, got on the Mass Pike, and get this, he crashed into a Massachusetts state police cruiser with its emergency lights on, injuring an officer. The legal question in the case is liability. Not necessarily the liability of the restaurant — there are other doctrines, dram shop liability, social host liability, that might come into play there — but rather, the liability of the valet. Does a valet owe a duty of care to the public, so that failing to withhold car keys from a visibly intoxicated person, could give rise to negligence?
Matheiu: Assuming the valet is being considered a different company than the restaurant itself?
Medwed: Yes, I think that's important.
Mathieu: This is interesting. What are the legal arguments on both sides?
Medwed: Well, I'll try to put them down in a nutshell here. On the one hand, there are strong public safety concerns in favor of imposing a duty of care. If a parking lot attendant is in a position to stop someone from drinking and driving, which we all know is very, very hazardous, we want to create an incentive to motivate that attendant to withhold the car keys. And arguably a duty of care would provide such an incentive. But on the other hand, there are what lawyers like to call slippery slope problems. Where do we draw the line? What are we asking valets to do? To scrutinize whether somebody is or is not intoxicated?
And let's say the valet gets it wrong. Let's say the valet gives keys to somebody who doesn't appear visibly intoxicated but actually is, [and that person] causes an accident. Is the valet liable? The valet company? Or conversely, what if the valet fails to turn over car keys to somebody, thinking the person's intoxicated, and the person's not? Could the person sue the valet for interfering with his property rights? There are lots of open questions here.
Mathieu: That's a lot of gray area. So let's pretend you're Justice Medwed. You look great in that robe. How would you rule?
Medwed: I don't deserve the promotion, Joe. But but as a lawyer, I know to give lots of caveats before answers like this. And I haven't read every document in this case by a long shot, but my instinct is that some duty of care would be warranted. Maybe not a full duty, but maybe a minimal duty to do some affirmative step before turning over the keys. Maybe alert restaurant management, or call the police. The Massachusetts Academy of Trial Lawyers has floated this alternative in an amicus brief filed in this case, and I find it pretty compelling as an option.
Mathieu: Okay. Separately from that case, while you're here, last week something we covered in the newsroom here — Chief Justice Ralph Gants gave his annual state of the judiciary speech. It tends not to get a lot of coverage, so I wonder if there is anything notable?
Medwed: This was significant, because Chief Justice Gants emphasized the issue of judicial independence — how judges should issue opinions without fear or favor, without concerns about benefiting their careers or benefiting particular litigants. This is vital in this day and age when the judiciary is under attack, not just from President Trump, but also from individual citizens who pick apart specific decisions and say the judge got it wrong.
When it comes down to it, in my view, judges are the most important safeguard to protect the interests of the minority against the whims of the majority. And I get very alarmed when judges are given some political pressure. Now, things are a little better in Massachusetts. There's some political insulation because judges are appointed, not elected. But it's still important for Chief Justice Gants to underscore this.
