The New Jersey Supreme Court's 1959 decision in Rappaport v. Nichols began a nationwide trend toward holding tavern owners liable for damages caused by their patrons' alcohol-related accidents. Twenty-five years later, the same court's decision in Kelly v. Gwinnell has apparently started a similar trend that holds social hosts liable for such damages. Viewed through doctrinal concepts such as foreseeability and proximate cause, civil liability for social hosts arguably is justified for the same reasons as civil liability for tavern owners, although the justifications become weaker as circumstances move along the continuum from one-to-one contact between host and guest to large gatherings involving multiple hosts and hundreds of guests. As the New Jersey Supreme Court has observed, however, 'whether a duty exists is ultimately a question of fairness.' Courts should not impose a duty on purely doctrinal grounds when that duty cannot pass scrutiny for fundamental fairness. Social host liability cannot pass any reasonable fairness test, as the benefits of liability are overcome by the crushing burdens of liability. 270 footnotes.