Hanna v. Stone
| Decision Date | 31 March 2000 |
| Citation | 748 A.2d 115,329 N.J. Super. 385 |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
| Parties | Adel HANNA and Sophie Hanna, Guardians ad litem of Christopher Hanna, an infant, and Adel Hanna, individually, and Sophie Hanna, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald STONE and Theresa Stone, Defendants-Respondents, and Richard Bruno, Richard Bruno, Sr., and Cynthia Bruno, Defendants. |
Marianne Zembryski, Clark, for plaintiffs-appellants (Mackevich, Burke & Stanicki, attorneys; Ms. Zembryski, on the brief).
Randi S. Greenberg, Piscataway, for defendants-respondents (Robert A. Auerbach, attorney, Morganville; Ms. Greenberg, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges PRESSLER, KIMMELMAN and CIANCIA.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by CIANCIA, J.A.D.
During the course of a teenage birthday party one boy struck and injured another boy. The issue presented in this appeal is whether summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the parents who were hosting the party in their home. We hold that it was.
Defendants Ronald and Theresa Stone permitted their son Ronnie to have a fourteenth birthday celebration in their home. Approximately forty or fifty written invitations were issued by Ronnie to his friends from school and the neighborhood. Although the Stones did not know each invitee personally, their son did. It appears most invitations were accepted. The function began around 7:30 p.m., and with one possible exception, only invited guests were in attendance. The teenagers were in different parts of the house but the party was concentrated in the basement, where it was estimated that approximately thirty teenagers were present at the time of the incident. The basement itself consisted of two rooms, one approximately twenty feet by twelve feet and one slightly smaller. There was a "full size" pool table in the larger room and a disc jockey hired by the Stones for the occasion was in the smaller room. Mrs. Stone was in and out of the basement five or ten times before the incident in question. Mr. Stone apparently only went into the basement on perhaps two or three occasions.
The party had been in progress uneventfully for approximately one and one-half or two hours when one boy struck another boy in the face causing injury and eventually leading to the present litigation. Although unknown to Mr. and Mrs. Stone, approximately five or six months before the party these two boys had had words on a school bus and a day or two later had entered into some voluntary fisticuffs outside school near a basketball court.
Plaintiffs Adel Hanna and Sophie Hanna as parents of the child struck at the party and in their individual capacities, sued the Stones as well as the teenager who struck the blow and his parents, Richard and Cynthia Bruno. The litigation with the Brunos and their son was eventually resolved. The theory of liability against the Stones was a negligent failure "to properly supervise all visitors and invitees on the premises for the birthday party." The motion judge concluded that the Stones had breached no duty they might have owed to the Hannas' son and granted judgment in favor of those defendants. We agree with the motion judge's ruling, although our rationale is slightly different.
On the facts presented we find no support in our case law for the proposition that parents of a minor teenager have a duty to supervise the friends of that teenager when they congregate for a social occasion at the parents' home. With that absence of legal support comes the concomitant conclusions that, contrary to plaintiffs' urgings, parents have no absolute duty to be constantly present among the teenagers at a social function and no duty to check the background and relationships of the invitees before issuing birthday invitations. On the other hand we disagree with defendants' position that the duty owed was limited to that which a social host owes to a social guest, a mere licensee. That duty requires only that the hosts refrain from willful injury or active wrongdoing and warn of known risks that are not apparent or known to the licensee. Berger v. Shapiro, 30 N.J. 89, 97-98, 152 A.2d 20 (1959). Such a classification is perhaps useful in dealing with a condition of property, but here the primary focus must be on the activity conducted on the premises. In regard to activities, the duty of the person conducting the activity, such as parents sponsoring a party for their son, is "simply to use reasonable care in all the circumstances." Cropanese v. Martinez, 35 N.J.Super. 118, 122-23, 113 A.2d 433 (App.Div.1955) (quoting Dunster v. Abbott, 2 All Eng. L.R. 1573, 1574 (Ct.App.1953)). On the facts here presented w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perez v. Cumba, No. 33590.
...incurred, rather than the specific instrumentalities by which it was inflicted.15 That precept is exemplified in Hanna v. Stone, 329 N.J.Super. 385, 748 A.2d 115 (App.Div.2000), which involved a fight between social invitees on the defendants' premises. Like the defendant in the present cas......
-
Perez v. Cumba, AC 33590
...rather than the specific instrumentalities by which it was inflicted.15 That precept is exemplified in Hanna v. Stone, 329 N.J. Super. 385, 748 A.2d 115 (App. Div. 2000), which involved a fight between social invitees on the defendants' premises. Like the defendant in the present case,the d......
-
Razzaghi v. Virtua Health, Inc.
...no evidence linking Navek to gun violence or that he had committed any violent criminal behavior in the past. In Hanna v. Stone, 329 N.J. Super. 385, 388-89 (App. Div. 2000), the issue involved the alleged negligent failure by homeowners to supervise all visitors and invitees. We found that......
-
Piech v. Layendecker
...he sponsored and conducted in his backyard, not from a static dangerous condition on the property. Relying on Hanna v. Stone, 329 N.J. Super. 385, 748 A.2d 115 (App. Div. 2000), plaintiff repeats her argument that the only applicable charge as to John's standard of care is contained in Exce......