Wallace v. Wilson

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: Before LIACOS; O'CONNOR
• Citation: 575 N.E.2d 1134,411 Mass. 8
• Parties: James WALLACE v. Audrey WILSON et al. 1 (and a companion case 2 ).
• Decision Date: 14 August 1991

Page 1134

575 N.E.2d 1134 411 Mass. 8 James WALLACE
v.
Audrey WILSON et al. ¹ (and a companion case
²). Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
Middlesex. Argued May 7, 1991.
Decided Aug. 14, 1991.

Gerard M. Mahaney, Natick, for John Tessier.

Paul M. Richardson (Paul R. Kelley with him), Cambridge, for defendants.

Page 1135

Thomas G. Waldstein, Framingham, for James Wallace, was present but did not argue.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

O'CONNOR, Justice.

The plaintiff in each of these cases alleges that he was assaulted and battered by the defendants DeLuca, Tobio, Conlon, and Leofanti outside the home of the defendants Audrey Wilson and Benjamin F. Wilson following a teenagers' party at the Wilsons' home. The claims [411 Mass. 9] against DeLuca, Tobio, Conlon, and Leofanti are not at issue in this appeal, nor, for the reason we state below, is the claim against Benjamin F. Wilson. At issue on appeal are the plaintiffs' allegations against Audrey Wilson (Wilson) that their injuries resulted from her failure to supervise the party and particularly to monitor the teenagers' consumption of alcoholic beverages. The gravamen of the complaint against Wilson is that, although there may not be evidence that she supplied the beverages, she knew or had reason to know that the guests, all minors, would and in fact did consume alcohol at the party and that, as a result, they would present a risk of bodily harm to third persons in the position of the plaintiffs. This, the plaintiffs claim, violated a duty of reasonable care Wilson owed them.

The record is unclear, but it appears that the Wilsons either filed a motion for summary judgment in each case and the cases were then consolidated for the purpose of hearing and disposition of the motions, or that only one motion was filed and that that motion was understood by the parties and the motion judge to apply to both cases. At any rate, it is clear that the court was called upon to determine whether the Wilsons were entitled to summary judgment in both cases, and did so. We cannot tell from the record what materials relevant to the summary judgment issue were considered by the judge, but the parties seem to agree that Wilson's written statement to the police and her deposition, as well as the depositions of the plaintiff Tessier and the defendant Conlon, and the plaintiff Wallace's affidavit were made available to the judge. After a hearing, summary judgment was granted to the Wilsons in both cases, and the plaintiffs appealed. We transferred the cases here on our own initiative. We now affirm the judgments below. ³

[411 Mass. 10] The relevant facts established for summary judgment purposes by the police statement, affidavit, and depositions are as follows. In setting out the facts, we resolve any conflicts in the summary judgment materials, and we make all logically permissible inferences, in the plaintiffs' favor. Coveney v. President & Trustees of the College of the Holy Cross, 388 Mass. 16, 17, 445 N.E.2d 136 (1983). Wilson reluctantly agreed to allow her seventeen year old daughter to hold the party at her home and chose to remain there as a chaperone because she "wanted to make sure everything was under control, [she] didn't want them to bring any liquor in." Wilson greeted the guests at the door, all of whom appeared to be about her daughter's age. There were three girls from Ashland, where the home was located, and five boys from Belmont. All...