By: Erika Vasant, Law Clerk
Editor: Betsy G. Ramos, Esq.
In August 2017, intoxicated, twenty-six year old Raniel Hernandez attended a party, where he subsequently drowned after jumping into a pool. Earlier this week, the New Jersey Appellate Division, addressed the tort claims arising from the tragic accident. Plaintiffs Silvana Lansigan Delvalle and Ralph Hernandez, parents of the deceased Raniel Hernandez, sued with claims of common law negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as a Portee claim regarding their son’s death. The issued on appeal in Delvalle v. Trino, 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 139 (App. Div. Dec. 6, 2022) was whether the defendant homeowners, Henry and Charlene Trino, and their son, Airel Trino, (and some of the guests) were liable as social hosts for Raniel’s death.
Airel Trino hosted a party at his parents’ house, and allowed attendees to use the swimming pool if they wished to. He purchased alcohol for guests, and about 60 people attended, including Raniel. During the party, a visibly intoxicated Raniel entered the pool, after Wendy, another attendee, agreed to let him throw her into the pool – an activity he had planned weeks before. Afterwards, Wendy was exiting the pool when she noticed that Raniel was not getting out. She tried to pull Raniel out, but was unsuccessful. Kevin Garcia, another attendee, jumped in and tried to rescue Raniel, but all efforts to save him were ineffective. After about 25 minutes, 9-1-1 was called. The autopsy report showed that Raniel’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was significantly high, causing the accidental drowning and cardiac arrest.
At the close of discovery, the defendants filed for a summary judgment dismissal, which was denied at the trial court level. However, leave to appeal was granted and, in a published decision, the Appellate Division reversed those decisions.
In addressing the defendants’ appeal, the Appellate Division found that there was nothing in the record that indicated that Garcia had any influence on Raniel’s decision to jump into the pool. More specifically, Garcia owed no statutory duty to save Raniel, and the Social Host Liability Act (SHLA), did not apply either, because Garcia was not a host. Even though Garcia attempted to rescue Raniel, his rescue efforts were protected by the Good Samaritan Act. The plaintiffs failed to allege any evidence of roughhousing or altercations between Garcia and Raniel. Although Garcia left the party after attempting to rescue Raniel, he was not fleeing. Instead he left the premises to escort his underage girlfriend away to avoid being cited for underage drinking. In consideration of all of these facts, Garcia was entitled to summary judgment, and the Appellate Division reversed the denial of summary judgment for this defendant.
In regards to the Trinos defendants the Appellate Division came to the same conclusion: that there was no genuine issue of fact that would justify the denial of a grant of summary judgment. SHLA did not apply to the Trinos because that statute is exclusive to injuries related to the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. SHLA is not triggered simply because a social host decided to serve alcohol. Furthermore, the Trinos did not owe a duty to Raniel since there was no public safety concern of him ever operating a motor vehicle in the situation. Nonetheless, the Court noted that the plaintiffs may have a potential claim regarding a failure to warn. However, there was no case law suggesting that socials hosts have a duty to “prevent a voluntarily intoxicated adult guest from going swimming to safeguard the guest’s own well-being.” Although the plaintiffs contend that the Trinos should have had a lifeguard at the pool party, there was no regulation or case law suggesting it was required. Underage drinking at the party, although a concern, was not at issue in this case, because Raniel was a twenty-six-year-old ex-Marine.
The Appellate Division also found summary judgment should have been granted for the claims regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs allege that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up Raniel’s death since no one told them about what happened to their son after they arrived. This behavior does not, however, amount to extreme and outrageous as defined by case law. The plaintiffs also failed to allege sufficient facts for a Portee claim, because Ralph was not present when his son drowned.