Lordi v. Spiotta

New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals · Torts

TortsPremises liabilitySocial guest/licenseeActive negligencesocial guestlicenseeinviteepremises liability

Facts

The defendant invited the plaintiff, his employee and friend, to the defendant's summer bungalow. Earlier that day, the defendant went to the cellar to turn off the gas heater after his son asked him to do so, but later admitted he had not fully turned it off, allowing gas to accumulate around the heater. That night, at the defendant's request, the plaintiff went into the cellar to light the heater so a young nephew could take a shower, and when plaintiff struck a match an explosion seriously injured him. The plaintiff had never been in that cellar and had no experience with that heater.

Issue

Whether the defendant host was entitled to a directed verdict on the theory that plaintiff was only a social guest to whom the host owed no duty beyond refraining from wanton or willful injury. More specifically, whether a host may be liable when a social guest is injured by an unknown concealed danger created by the host's active negligence.

Rule

Even assuming the plaintiff is a social guest who ordinarily takes the premises as found, the guest rule does not immunize a host from liability when the guest is injured by an unknown danger created by the host's active negligence. A concealed dangerous condition created by the host's affirmative negligent act is analogous to a trap.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Carver invited her friend Elena Ruiz to spend the weekend at her lake house near Madison, Wisconsin. Earlier that evening, Nina loosened a propane fitting while trying to adjust an outdoor water heater, did not realize gas was escaping into a small utility shed, and later asked Elena, who had never seen the heater before, to go inside and relight it; when Elena struck a match, an explosion injured her.

If Elena sues Nina, which is the strongest basis for denying Nina's motion for a directed verdict at the close of Elena's case?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that, even assuming the plaintiff is merely a social guest who ordinarily takes the premises as found, the host is not immune when the guest is injured by an unknown concealed danger created by the host's affirmative negligent act. Here, Nina's imperfect adjustment of the fitting created a hidden gas accumulation, and her request that Elena relight the heater supports treating the hazard as analogous to a trap. (Derived from Lordi v. Spiotta (n.d.).)