In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scudder, over a partial dissent, the Fourth Department addressed many issues (not all mentioned here) stemming from plaintiff’s fall from a bathroom window at a psuedo-fraternity house where the “resident defendants” rented rooms and were responsible for cleaning the bathrooms. The Fourth Department determined the resident defendants had a duty to maintain the property in a safe condition and to give warning of unsafe conditions that are not open and obvious. There was a question of fact whether the window, which was only 13 inches above the floor and had no screen or fall-prevention device, was a dangerous condition. There was a question of fact whether the hazard was open and obvious. There was a question of fact whether the resident defendants had actual or constructive notice of the hazard. The court, however, agreed with the defendants that the cause of action based upon an alleged duty to supervise the 18-year-old plaintiff should have been dismissed:
Hosts of parties where alcohol is consumed in a home that they either own or occupy risk exposure to liability under two separate and distinct theories of negligence. One theory is based on their duties as owners or occupiers of the premises “to control the conduct of third persons for the protection of others on the premises” …, and the other theory is based on the duty of adults to “provide[] adequate supervision for minor guests who bec[ome] intoxicated at their home” … . * * *
The issue in this case, insofar as it relates to the negligent supervision claim, is whether the resident defendants had a duty to the adult plaintiff to supervise him and to protect him from injuring himself as a result of his voluntary intoxication. Any duty of the resident defendants to protect the intoxicated plaintiff from himself would come from the fact that they hosted the party, i.e., they provided the alcohol. Otherwise, plaintiff could sue anyone attending the party for failing to supervise him. …The Court of Appeals ….noted that the courts of New York had rejected “any argument that a duty exists to protect a consumer of alcohol from the results of his or her own voluntary conduct” … . We thus conclude that, because plaintiff was not a minor entrusted to the care of the resident defendants, the resident defendants did not have a duty to protect plaintiff from the results of his own voluntary intoxication. Parslow … v Leake…, 1341, 4th Dept 3-28-14