January 1, 1900

by Patricia M. McIntire

New Jersey courts traditionally have been highly sensitive to the serious risk of harm presented when alcoholic beverages are made available to minors. It is no surprise then that the courts have held parents responsible for injuries suffered by underage guests who are served in their home, but in their absence. The courts reason that where there is a serious risk of injury to a minor, one which is reasonably foreseeable, those in the position of responsibility generally have a "duty" to take precautions to prevent such risks. One example is the case of Morella v. Machu where facts may seem all too familiar to many parents of teenage children today.

Case Examples

In Morella the parents left their three minor children, ages 13, 15 and 17, home alone while they vacationed out of state for a few days. Trusting their children, the parents did not provide for any adult supervision. One evening, an "open party" developed at the house where approximately 50 guests, all of whom were minors, drank kegged beer provided, in part, by the children whose parents were on vacation. After the party, one of the minor guests got into his car and drove off. Moments later, while admittedly intoxicated, the minor guest caused an accident injuring an innocent person. Subsequently, the injured person sued the vacationing parents under the theory of "negligent supervision."

When the case was brought before the court, the parents attempted to argue that since they were not present at the party, they could not be held accountable for the actions of their children, but the court disagreed. Instead, the parents were charged with the legal "duty" to arrange for competent supervision of their children in their absence. The court found that if parents fail to provide proper supervision for their minor children, and that failure resulted in a foreseeable injury, then the parents should respond in damages for the consequences of their oversight.

At trial, the jury was asked to decide whether the parents exercised reasonable care in providing for the supervision of their minor children, and whether the consumption of alcohol in the home by unsupervised minors was reasonably foreseeable in the absence of adults. Lastly, the jury considered whether the actions of the intoxicated minor guest was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the parents' breach of duty to supervise. Based on these issues, the jury found the parents negligent.

Another example of parental negligent supervision is the case Witter v. Leo. In Witter, the mother of a minor child was sued by another person who injured himself while at a party in her absence. Again, it was alleged that the parent negligently failed to provide reasonable supervision for her minor son when she left him home alone for only one night during which he threw a beer party. During the course of the party, one of the teenage guests injured himself after consuming several beers when he jumped off the roof into a pool. The outcome in this case was initially different from Morella since the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that the parent was not negligent. The jury could not fathom how a parent, who decided to go away for only one night, could reasonably foresee that someone would injure himself by jumping off her roof. This was a victory for parents, however, the victory was short lived.

Parents Liable While On Vacation

The person injured appealed the matter to the appellate court, which reversed the jury's decision and ordered a new trial. The court did not agree with the jury's decision on the issue of "proximate cause" - a concept even seasoned attorneys have trouble comprehending. The Court emphasized that parents have a "duty" to provide for reasonable supervision of their minor children when they decide to leave the home unsupervised. This is especially true if it is foreseeable that, in their absence, a child will invite friends to a party where alcohol may be served and where the minor guests could get injured. The court reiterated the reasoning that when the risk of harm is presented by alcoholic beverages that are made available to minors is reasonably foreseeable, those responsible have a legal duty to take reasonable precautions. Consequently, the liability of the vacationing parents, who trusted their children to behave was retried.

These are just two examples demonstrating how the court imposes responsibility for underage drinking. With such potential liability, however, parents may be forced to reconsider the decision to leave a child home alone for any period of time. The New Jersey courts have made it clear: Parents are responsible when their teenage children serve alcohol to their friends!

Patricia M. McIntire is an associate of the firm in the Litigation Division where she is a member of the General Litigation Practice Group. She concentrates her practice in personal injury, insurance litigation and workers' compensation.