Davis v. Stapf

Citation120 A.3d 890,224 Md.App. 393
Decision Date26 August 2015
Docket NumberNo. 2533, Sept. Term, 2013.,2533, Sept. Term, 2013.
PartiesNancy DAVIS, et al. v. Linda STAPF, et al.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

224 Md.App. 393
120 A.3d 890

Nancy DAVIS, et al.
v.
Linda STAPF, et al.

No. 2533, Sept. Term, 2013.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Aug. 26, 2015.


120 A.3d 892

Timothy F. Maloney (Matthew M. Bryant, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA, on the brief), Greenbelt, MD, for appellant.

Lauren S. Capelle (Clifford A. Robinsons, on the brief), Towson, MD, for appellee.

Panel: KRAUSER, C.J., GRAEFF and NAZARIAN, JJ.

Opinion

GRAEFF, J.

224 Md.App. 397

It is a criminal offense for an adult to knowingly or willfully allow an unrelated person under the age of 21 to consume alcohol for nonreligious purposes at a residence the adult owns or leases. Md.Code (2014 Supp.) § 10–117(b) of the Criminal Law Article (“CL”). The question raised in this case is whether a person who violates this statute has a duty of care that can result in civil liability when an intoxicated minor subsequently is injured.

On November 28, 2009, 17–year–old Steven Dankos was drinking at a party. He was killed when the truck in which he was riding, driven by another intoxicated partygoer, crashed. Nancy Davis, individually, as Mother and Next Friend of Steven

120 A.3d 893

Dankos, decedent, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Steven Dankos, appellants (collectively “Ms. Davis”), filed suit against Linda Stapf, appellee, in the Circuit Court for Howard County. Ms. Stapf filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that she owed no duty of care to Steven under Maryland law, and therefore, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After a hearing, the court granted Ms. Stapf's motion to dismiss.

On appeal, Ms. Davis presents three questions for our review, which we have consolidated and rephrased, as follows:

1. Did Ms. Stapf have a statutory duty to Steven pursuant to CL § 10–117(b), which prohibits adult property owners from allowing minors to consume alcoholic beverages on their premises?
2. Did Ms. Stapf have a duty of care to Steven based on a special relationship that was created when she hosted an underage drinking party on her property and knowingly permitted Steven to consume alcohol?
224 Md.App. 398
3. Did Ms. Stapf assume a duty to prevent harm to Steven, where she knew he and other minors were consuming alcohol on her property, exercised control over the people who were present at her house, and controlled the flow of alcohol?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because this appeal involves the propriety of the circuit court's ruling granting a motion to dismiss, we look to the facts alleged in the complaint. The facts alleged in Ms. Davis' first amended complaint are as follows.

In 2009, Steven was a senior at River Hill High School in Clarksville, Maryland, where he played on the football team. Ms. Stapf had a son, Kevin, then 19 years old, who had attended River Hill. Ms. Stapf's residence was known among River Hill students as a “party house,” due to Ms. Stapf's willingness to “permit and condone underage drinking.” With Ms. Stapf's approval, express or tacit, her residence was used “virtually every weekend” for parties where alcohol was consumed by underage persons.

On November 28, 2009, a party was held at Ms. Stapf's residence. Two days prior to the party, Ms. Stapf purchased approximately $115 worth of alcohol. Kevin also illegally purchased alcohol. The alcohol was kept, maintained, and cooled in Ms. Stapf's garage.

At approximately 10:00 p.m., Ms. Stapf, who had been next door, returned to her residence. At that time, there were approximately 20 vehicles parked in her driveway and on the street adjacent to her house. Several young people were walking down the street to her house, and there was a large crowd of people on her property congregating in the garage.

Due to the size of the party, and that she did not know a number of the people who were at the party, Ms. Stapf asked Kevin to make some of the people leave. Ms. Stapf also made a judgment call as to which individuals could stay, including

224 Md.App. 399

David Erdman, who had been drinking for several hours and was “obviously intoxicated.” Mr. Erdman was 22 years old at the time.

Ms. Stapf requested that one of Kevin's friends move her truck to block the driveway to discourage additional people from parking in the driveway. As a result of Ms. Stapf's intervention, a number of people left the party, and a smaller group of

120 A.3d 894

Kevin's friends and acquaintances stayed in the garage, with Ms. Stapf's permission.

Ms. Stapf, who appeared at least four times at the garage party, observed numerous underage individuals drinking alcohol. Despite her actual knowledge that underage persons were consuming alcohol at her house, and her ability to control, prohibit, and limit the consumption of alcohol at her residence, Ms. Stapf did not tell anyone to stop drinking alcohol, nor did she take any steps to prevent intoxication.

While the party continued in the garage, Ms. Stapf played solitaire in the kitchen, in close proximity to the garage. At approximately 1:30 a.m., Ms. Stapf asked that the music be turned down. At some point in the early morning hours, Kelsey Erdman, Mr. Erdman's younger sister, came into the kitchen and told Ms. Stapf that she was concerned about Mr. Erdman driving his truck home. She stated that Mr. Erdman was embarrassing her, and she asked Ms. Stapf if she should drive him home. Ms. Stapf had seen Mr. Erdman consume alcohol throughout the evening, and she knew that Kelsey was concerned about his level of intoxication. Nevertheless, Ms. Stapf did not recommend that Kelsey drive Mr. Erdman home or do anything else in response to Kelsey's request for assistance. She did not call Mr. Erdman's parents regarding his condition and inability to drive. Nor did she check Mr. Erdman's condition, attempt to take his keys, or ask Mr. Erdman to stay at her residence until he was sober.

Ms. Stapf knew that Steven, Mr. Erdman, and Mr. Erdman's 18–year–old brother, Thomas Erdman, consumed alcohol at her residence and were intoxicated as a result. She observed that Steven and Thomas were “not right, tired, like

224 Md.App. 400

drunk.” Ms. Stapf knew or should have known that, by the early morning hours of November 28, Mr. Erdman was so intoxicated that he could not stand without assistance. Nevertheless, she did not call any parent to inform them that their children were illegally consuming alcohol, were intoxicated, and could not drive safely home. She also did not intervene and refuse to permit any intoxicated drivers from leaving her residence by car, despite knowing that they were intoxicated and unable to safely and legally operate a vehicle.

At approximately 2:48 a.m. on November 29, Mr. Erdman left the party with Thomas and Steven. Mr. Erdman drove his parents' 1994 GMC pickup truck. Thomas sat in the front passenger seat, and Steven rode in the bed of the truck. Shortly after leaving Ms. Stapf's residence, Mr. Erdman crashed the truck on Folly Quarter Road. Steven was ejected from the truck and killed. Mr. Erdman's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident was .21 grams per 100 milliliters of blood; more than 2.5 times the legal limit. Steven's blood alcohol concentration was between .21 to .30 grams per 100 milliliters of blood.

On October 28, 2010, Ms. Stapf was charged with allowing underage persons to drink alcohol in violation of CL § 10–117(b). The State ultimately placed the charge on the stet docket.

On January 20, 2010, Mr. Erdman was charged with, inter alia, committing a homicide with a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. He entered a guilty plea, and the court sentenced him to five years of incarceration, all but 18 months suspended.

On November 27, 2012, Ms. Davis filed the Complaint. On May 22, 2013, she filed the First Amended Complaint. In Count I, social host liability, she alleged that Ms. Stapf, as the host of the party, owed a “duty to ensure that alcohol was consumed with care and refrain from allowing intoxicated

120 A.3d 895

persons such as [Mr.] Erdman from continuing to consume alcohol,” and she “also owed a duty to all who travel on the roadways to refrain from allowing intoxicated individuals to

224 Md.App. 401

drive a vehicle while intoxicated.” Ms. Davis alleged that Ms. Stapf breached this duty when she permitted Mr. Erdman to continue consuming alcohol while he was intoxicated and failed to stop Mr. Erdman from driving, despite knowing that he was unable to drive due to his level of intoxication. As a direct and proximate cause of Ms....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Kiriakos v. Dankos
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 5, 2016
    ...the motion in substantial part.12 Following her timely notice of appeal,13 the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. Davis v. Stapf, 224 Md.App. 393, 398, 120 A.3d 890, cert. granted sub nom. Dankos v. Stapf, 445 Md. 4, 122 A.3d 974 (2015).14 Although the intermediate appellate court concluded......
  • Conover v. Conover
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 26, 2015
  • Kiriakos v. Dankos
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 5, 2016
    ...granted the motion in substantial part.12 Following her timely notice of appeal,13 the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. Davis v. Stapf, 224 Md. App. 393, 398, cert. granted sub nom. Dankos v. Stapf, 445 Md. 4 (2015).14 Although the intermediate appellate court concluded that Dankos proper......
  • Brown v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • January 5, 2021
    ...A.3d 53 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2017) (negligence action by homeowners against builder after guardrail in house failed); Davis v. Stapf, 120 A.3d 890 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) (negligence action against partyhost who condoned underage drinking at her residence and allowed intoxicated minor to d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT