Figuly v. Knoll

• Decision Date: 08 July 1982
• Citation: 449 A.2d 564,185 N.J.Super. 477
• Parties: Susan C. FIGULY and Holly Feinson, Plaintiffs, v. John M. KNOLL and Charles R. Knoll and Glen Longfield, Defendants.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 477

185 N.J.Super. 477

449 A.2d 564

Susan C. FIGULY and Holly Feinson, Plaintiffs, v. John M. KNOLL and Charles R. Knoll and Glen Longfield, Defendants.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Monmouth County.

Decided July 8, 1982.

Thomas J. DiChiara, Red Bank, for plaintiffs (Drazin & Warshaw, Red Bank, attorneys).

Dennis J. Melofchik, Asbury Park, for defendant Glen Longfield (Campbell, Foley, Lee, Murphy & Cernigliaro, Asbury Park, attorneys).

No one appeared on behalf of defendants John M. Knoll and Charles R. Knoll.

SHEBELL, A. J. S. C.

Defendant Longfield moves for summary judgment asserting that no cause of action may be maintained in New Jersey as a matter of law against a noncommercial resident who conducts a social affair and negligently allows a social guest to become intoxicated, thereby causing injury to another while operating a motor vehicle.

Defendant Longfield conducted a party upon rented premises where he resided. Codefendant Knoll was an invited guest in attendance for over five hours. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Knoll was served alcoholic beverages during that time and that he became obviously drunk after consuming approximately one dozen drinks of vodka and tonic. Defendant Longfield had previously worked as a commercial bartender and knew defendant Knoll from that work. Longfield classified Knoll as an alcoholic or close to it and acknowledged his ability to recognize various stages of intoxication when they were present in Knoll.

Summary judgment may be granted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; all doubts must be resolved against the moving party. R. 4:46-2; United Advertising Corp. v. Metuchen, 35 N.J. 193, 172 A.2d 429 (1961).

This court does not find that plaintiff's suit is barred as a matter of law. In 1959 the New Jersey Supreme Court in Rappaport v. Nichols, 31 N.J. 188, 156 A.2d 1 (1959), recognized a cause of action where a tavern keeper unlawfully and negligently sold alcoholic beverages to a minor causing intoxication which in turn contributed to his negligent operation of a motor vehicle at the time of an accident which caused the death of a third party. The Rappaport doctrine was further applied by the Supreme Court in Soronen v. Olde Milford Inn, Inc., 46 N.J. 582, 218 A.2d 630 (1966), so as to extend the doctrine to intoxicated adults as well as minors where the tavern keeper knew or should have known that the patron was intoxicated when the service occurred.

The Appellate Division in Linn v. Rand, 140 N.J.Super. 212, 356 A.2d 15 (1976), stated:

The forward-looking and far-reaching philosophy expressed in Rappaport should also be applicable to negligent social hosts and should not be limited to holders of liquor licenses and their employees. [At 216, 356 A.2d 15]

While Linn dealt with the serving of alcohol to a minor while a social guest at defendant's home and imposed liability, there is nothing in the reasoning thereof which would limit the application of the doctrine set forth therein to minors any more than it could be argued...