In 2007, a 16-year-old girl from Wrentham was critically injured after the car in which she was a passenger crashed into a utility pole. Her boyfriend was the driver. The couple had been at a party, hosted by a 19-year-old, according to the Associated Press.

Although the girl's boyfriend had bought the alcohol he consumed at the party, before driving home, the girl's parents sued the 19-year-old girl who hosted the party.

On Tuesday, the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the host was not liable, "that teenagers who host underage drinking parties but do not supply alcohol cannot be held civilly liable if one of their guests gets hurt," according to a report by the Associated Press.

In its decision, the AP reported, the court rejected a request to expand the state's social host liability law by extending a "duty of care" to an underage party host who does not supply the alcohol, but provides a location where teens are allowed to drink.

The court said a social host is liable only when the host serves alcohol or controls the supply of alcohol, the AP reported.

Does this decision make sense? Will it discourage teens from hosting drinking parties, if they know they can't be penalized, as long as they don't buy the alcohol? What do you think? Vote in our poll and explain in the comments.