Appellate Court Sides with Homeowners in Social Host Liability Act Claim Involving Intoxicated Party Guest
The Appellate Division recently held that homeowners cannot be held liable under the Social Host Liability Act Claim for intoxicated, adult social guests who sustain injuries on their property. According to a December 6 published decision, 26-year-old Raniel Hernandez was intoxicated when he jumped into a pool at a house party and ultimately passed away. Following his death, his estate filed suit against the party host, the home owners, and multiple guests. Estate of Hernandez v. Trino et al., A2248-21, A-2249-21 (Dec. 6, 2022).
Regarding the party guests, the Court noted that they breached no duty to Hernandez and had no responsibility to monitor him or restrict his actions at the party. In other words, the Court found that there was no civil duty of care under these circumstance absent a special relationship or circumstance. Further, the rescue efforts by the guests were also protected.
Regarding the homeowners, the Court similarly found that they had no duty to Hernandez, an adult, at this party. Unlike a social host who serves an intoxicated guest who later is involved in a motor vehicle accident (a specific circumstance wherein a civil remedy is made available via statue), there is no significant public safety concern for a guest who drowns at a pool party due to voluntary intoxication. Thus, the Court found that social hosts have no duty to prevent a voluntary intoxicated adult from swimming, particularly when the danger is obvious or known. Drowning in a pool is one such open and obvious danger. Again, there is no liability for a social host who furnishes a guest alcohol based upon common law. There was similarly no duty for the owners to provide a lifeguard or other supervision at the pool. Nor, particularly given Hernandez’s age, did the homeowners have a responsibility to warn him of the dangers of drinking and swimming.
Importantly, here, Hernandez was an adult who was voluntarily intoxicated and jumped into the pool on his own accord. Had the other guests somehow caused him to drown, had there been some actual non-obvious danger unknown to him (such as the pool being extremely shallow), or had Hernandez been under the drinking age, the outcome may have been different. However, under these facts, the Court found that summary judgment was appropriate.
The Court also addressed additional claims involving emotional distress and failure to provide proper aid. This included allegations that the defendants were hiding Hernandez’s death from his father and that they did not call for emergency assistance quickly enough. These claims were similarly dismissed as there was no evidence that the conduct of any of the defendants contributed to the Hernandez’s death or that the defendants’ behavior was extreme or outrageous. However, these claims can stand on their own and it is important to note the outcome may have been very different had the Court found that the defendants had acted improperly after it was apparent that Hernandez was injured.
In short, insured homeowners cannot be held liable for merely providing alcohol to adult guests. Further, should adult guests become voluntarily intoxicated and then injure themselves on the property, there is unlikely to be a viable claim absent a hidden or unknown danger or some specific wrongdoing by the homeowners or other guests. Regarding pools specifically, this case offers homeowners reassurance that they need not monitor their pools or provide safety warnings for the benefit of adult guests. Although swimming pools are an added potential liability to a home, this case makes it clear that an injury related to a pool does not necessarily result in a viable lawsuit.
If you have any questions about homeowners liability under the Social Host Liability Act or premises liability involving personal injury claims related to a pool accident, contact Amelia R. Lyte and Joseph V. Leone or call as at 732-545-4717.