PHOENIX - People who give their prescription drugs to someone else are responsible if whoever else ultimately ends up with them winds up injured - or dead - the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In what appears to be the first decision of its kind in the state, the justices said there are laws which prohibit the distribution of certain drugs to people who lack a valid prescription. That, the justices said, is designed to protect people who should not have these drugs.

Justice Scott Bales said that that means is that those who have the legitimate prescriptions have a duty to ensure that these drugs remain only in proper hands. More to the point, Bales said those who let other have their drugs are responsible for the consequences.

And Bales said the fact that the recipient voluntarily took the drugs does not let the giver off the legal hook.

But the implications of Monday's ruling could be far broader: Attorney JoJene Mills said it also means that parents who leave their prescription drugs where they are available to their teen also could end up in court.

Mills, who lobbies for the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association said the precedent-setting decision spells out that people with prescriptions for narcotics and other dangerous drugs have a legal responsibility to keep it out of the hands of others.

That, she said, leaves only the question of whether the person who had the prescription could reasonably have foreseen that they would wind up in the wrong hands.

She said that, under Monday's decision, parents who left drugs available knowing their teen child was having a party probably would be liable if one of those guests was injured or died.

This case involves a different situation.

Larry Kasey was attending a party at a restaurant where he worked. Also attending was co-worker Nathan Followill, and Sandy Watters, Followill's girlfriend.

According to the lawsuit filed against Kasey, he brought oxycodone pain pills to the party. The allegation is he has given out pills to coworkers on prior occasions.

Waters asked Kasey for one of his pain pills, the lawsuit states; he gave her eight and did not mention the potentially dangerous interaction of the pills and alcohol.

Shortly thereafter, Waters gave pills to Followill, who swallowed them. He died overnight of the combined toxicity of alcohol and oxycodone.

A lawsuit against Kasey filed by Followill's mother was thrown out of court. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jonathan Schwartz said that Kasey had no duty to exercise care with regard to Followill's activities.

Bales, writing for the unanimous high court, acknowledged that the Legislature specifically exempted "social hosts'' from any liability when they serve a guest too much and that person then goes out and causes an accident. But Bales said there is a legitimate purpose behind that exemption.

"Holding social hosts liable for harm caused by guests to whom they serve alcohol might curb desirable social exchanges,'' the justice wrote. "In contrast, no recognized social benefit flows from the illegal distribution of prescription drugs.''

Anyway, Bales noted, lawmakers did not extend that immunity provided to alcohol servers to those who give away prescription drugs.

The high court also said that while it was Watters who gave the drugs to Followill does not absolve Kasey of any legal liability.

Similarly, the justices said Kasey was not off the legal hook because Followill took the drugs voluntarily. At best, they said,

Followill's own culpability might reduce Kasey's liability but not extinguish it.