Case Title: Knight v. Rower

Citation: 170 Vt. 96, 742 A.2d 1237

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Knight v. Rower (98-400 & 98-485); 170 Vt. 96; 742 A.2d 1237

[Filed 29-Oct-1999]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as  formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify  the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont  05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to  press.

                            Nos. 98-400 & 98-485

Naomi "Sukie" Knight, Administrator of	                Supreme Court
the Estate of David Woodward, Naomi
"Sukie" Knight, Individually, and 
Timothy N. Woodward
	                                                On Appeal from
     v.		                                        Orange Superior Court

Jacob Rower, Kenneth Rower, Leslie S. 
Rower, Heather Pierson, Gidget Rollins,	                May Term, 1999
Sally Spear, Donald Leete, Duncan Leete
and Geraldine Leete

Shireen Avis Fisher, J. (98-400)
John P. Meaker, J. (98-485)

       David F. Kelley, Orleans, and John F. Evers of Langrock, Sperry and
  Wool, Middlebury, for  Plaintiffs-Appellants.

       Duncan Frey Kilmartin of Rexford & Kilmartin, Newport, for
  Defendant-Appellee Spear.

       James C. Gallagher of Downs, Rachlin & Martin, PLLC, St. Johnsbury,
  for Defendants-Appellees Leete.

PRESENT: Amestoy, C.J., Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J. 
(Ret.)(FN1) Specially Assigned.

       JOHNSON, J.   Plaintiffs appeal from two superior court decisions
  dismissing their  negligence action against defendants for failure to state
  a claim upon which relief can be  granted.  David Woodward and Jacob Rower
  visited two separate properties, one owned by  defendants Duncan and
  Geraldine Leete and the second owned by defendant Sally Spear.   They
  consumed alcohol on defendants' lands.  Woodward was a passenger in Rower's
  car as 

 

  they left Spear's property and Rower caused an accident.  Woodward died as
  a result of the  crash.  Plaintiffs are Woodward's mother, individually and
  as the administrator of his estate,  and his father. In both cases, the
  court held that landowners do not owe a legal duty to  individuals injured
  by minors attending social gatherings on their land if the landowners are 
  neither present nor furnish the alcohol consumed. We affirm.

       In reviewing the granting of a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
  V.R.C.P 12(c),  this Court takes as true all well-pleaded factual
  allegations in the nonmovant's pleadings and  all reasonable inferences to
  be drawn from them, and takes as false all contravening assertions  in the
  movant's pleadings.  See Thayer v. Herdt, 155 Vt. 448, 456, 586 A.2d 1122,
  1126  (1990).  We will affirm a judgment on the pleadings if the movant's
  pleadings contain no  allegations that, if proved, would permit recovery. 
  See id.  

       Plaintiffs allege the following events.  On the date in question,
  Jacob Rower was  nineteen years old and David Woodward was seventeen.  On
  July 4, 1996, Heather Pierson  purchased alcohol for Rower and Woodward. 
  In the afternoon of July 5th, Rower and  Woodward went to a camp site on
  Hall's Lake in Newbury that was owned by defendants  Duncan and Geraldine
  Leete, who were not there.  Rower consumed alcohol and gave alcohol  to
  Donald Leete, age forty-five, the son of Duncan and Geraldine Leete.  Jacob
  Rower's car  was parked in view of Donald Leete and Donald knew or should
  have known that Rower  intended to drive the car.  Donald Leete had
  previously held various parties on his parents'  property at which minors
  consumed alcohol.  Plaintiffs also allege that Donald's parents knew  that
  he had held large gatherings on their property where alcohol was consumed
  and that they  knew that Donald regularly held a Fourth of July party where
  alcohol was present.  Finally,  plaintiffs claim that Duncan and Geraldine
  Leete knew or should have known that alcohol  would be furnished to minors
  at the party on July 5, 1996.

       Plaintiffs do not allege that Donald had ever held a party previous to
  July 5, 1996, at  which minors were furnished with alcohol.  They do not
  allege that Donald Leete knew that 

 

  either Rower or Woodward was under the legal drinking age.  Plaintiffs fail
  to allege that on  July 5, 1996, Donald Leete furnished any alcohol to
  either Rower or Woodward.   Plaintiffs  do not allege that Duncan and
  Geraldine Leete were present at the party, nor do they allege  that the
  elder Leetes provided any of the alcohol consumed there. They do not even
  allege that  the elder Leetes knew of the party on July 5, 1996, only that
  they knew of other July Fourth  parties in preceding years.

       With regard to defendant Sally Spear, plaintiffs allege the following
  facts.  On July 5,  1996, Rower and Woodward visited a mobile home in
  Newbury, Vermont occupied by Gidget  Rollins, aged nineteen.  The home was
  owned by defendant Sally Spear, Gidget Rollins's  mother. Gidget Rollins
  knew or should have known that Rower and Woodward were under  twenty-one. 
  Rower and Woodward consumed alcohol on the Spear premises.  They allege
  that  Spear knew or should have known that her home was sometimes used by
  her daughter and  other minors as a place to consume alcoholic beverages.

       The pleadings do not allege that Gidget Rollins invited Rower and
  Woodward to come  to the mobile home.  They do not allege that Rollins
  furnished alcohol to Rower and  Woodward.  They fail to allege that Rower's
  car was present or visible from the Spear  premises or that Rollins had any
  reason to know Rower intended to drive a car.  Plaintiffs do  not allege
  that Sally Spear was present on July 5, 1996.  There is no allegation that
  Spear  supplied any alcohol that was consumed on the premises.  Nor do they
  allege that Spear had  arranged the gathering in any way.  Indeed, it is
  not clear from the pleadings whether Spear  lived in the mobile home with
  her daughter or lived elsewhere. There is no allegation that  Spear knew or
  should have known that minors would consume alcohol on her premises on July 
  5, 1996, only that she should have known that minors had consumed alcohol
  there "at various  times."  

       Plaintiffs brought actions for negligent operation of a motor vehicle,
  negligent  entrustment, and negligent supervision against Jacob Rower, the
  driver, and his parents, 

 

  Kenneth and Leslie Rower.  They also include as defendants Heather Pierson,
  who is alleged  to have purchased alcohol for Rower and Woodward on July 4,
  Gidget Rollins and Donald  Leete, who were present while the alcohol was
  consumed.  Lastly, plaintiffs sued Sally Spear  and Duncan and Geraldine
  Leete, the owners of property where Rower consumed alcohol.   Gidget
  Rollins and Sally Spear moved for judgment on the pleadings and/or summary 
  judgment; Duncan and Geraldine Leete moved for judgment on the pleadings. 
  The trial court  granted both motions for judgment on the pleadings,
  holding that property owners do not owe  a duty to individuals injured by
  minors attending social gatherings on their property if the  owners are
  neither present nor furnish the alcohol consumed.  Because plaintiffs never
  alleged  that Spear or the elder Leetes were present on July 5, 1996, or
  furnished the alcohol  consumed, we agree that defendant-parents were
  entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

                                     I.

       Plaintiffs propose to extend social host liability to unprecedented
  reaches.  Although  social host liability evolved in response to the
  well-documented tragedies of drunk-driving  accidents, we cannot justify
  expanding the meaning of "host" to encompass all property owners,  at all
  times, regardless of whether they were present on their property and
  regardless of whether  they had any opportunity for control. 

       The case usually cited as the origin of such a claim recognized the
  potential for social  host liability only in dicta.  See Langle v. Kurkul,
  146 Vt. 513,