In DeBolt v. Kragen Auto Supply, Inc. (1986) 182 Cal. App. 3d 269, the defendant served liquor to a minor, and then asked her to leave when she became intoxicated and disorderly. A demurrer was properly granted even though defendant had known the minor intended to drive her car, and failed to offer safer transportation. (182 Cal. App. 3d at p. 271.) The court noted that "the Legislature in 1978 specifically abrogated our Supreme Court's application of common law negligence principles to alcohol consumption-related injuries . . . stating that 'the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication, but rather the consumption of alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.' " ( Id. at p. 274.) The DeBolt court concluded that " 'the effect of the statute cannot be avoided by alleging the wrong, not as furnishing the alcohol,' but as forcing a person to leave a party or failing to provide safe transportation. " (Ibid.) The court further explained: "If we found liability possible here, soon complaints would be easily couched in language apart from furnishing or selling liquor. Plaintiffs would claim liability for inviting a person to a party where drinks are served knowing he/she might become intoxicated, failing to keep someone from driving as in Andre v. Ingram (1985) 164 Cal. App. 3d 206, 210 Cal. Rptr. 150, or any number of possibilities." ( Id. at p. 275.)