Tighe v. Peterson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Tighe v. Peterson

814 A.2d 1066, 175 N.J. 240, 2002 N.J. LEXIS 1789

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedDecember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 814 A.2d 1066 (Tighe v. Peterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tighe v. Peterson, 814 A.2d 1066, 175 N.J. 240, 2002 N.J. LEXIS 1789 (N.J. 2002).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm for the reasons expressed in the thorough and persuasive opinion of the Appellate Division majority authored by Judge King. We add only the following to underscore our agreement with that decision.

A host’s duty to a social guest includes an obligation to warn of a known dangerous condition on the premises except when the guest is aware of the condition or by reasonable use of the facilities would observe it. Tighe v. Peterson, 356 N.J.Super. 322, 325, 812 A.2d 423 (App.Div.2002) (citing New Jersey ease law applying test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts). Courts employ a fact-sensitive analysis when determining whether a host has fulfilled his or her duty to warn a particular guest. In this case, we are satisfied that defendants did not have to warn their brother-in-law plaintiff of the configuration of their pool’s depth— that is, where the shallow part of the pool was situated and where the shallow end began its slope downward toward the deepest portion of this in-ground pool. Plaintiff had been in the pool approximately twenty times before and testified that he was well aware of where the shallow and deep portions were situated. He also stated that he knew not to dive into the shallow part of the pool.

These hosts did not breach any duty to warn plaintiff about the depth locations when they allowed him to use the pool on what he [242]*242said may have been his twenty-first occasion to swim there. Id. at 324, 812 A.2d 423. Plaintiff made an unfortunate error on that occasion, injuring himself on the sloped bottom close to the shallow end of the pool. It defies notions of reasonableness to regard plaintiff as being unaware of the slope of the pool bottom, or to conclude he could not reasonably have detected it from his use of the pool that day and on the many occasions before. Nor was there any evidence that defendants encouraged a dangerous use of this pool. Rather, we are confronted here with a plaintiff who acknowledged that at the moment of the injury it was he who was “horsing around.” Unfortunately, the accident happened. However, we agree with the majority below that, on these facts, there was no legal duty to warn owed by defendants to plaintiff.

The grant of summary judgment by the courts below is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm for the reasons expressed in the thorough and persuasive opinion of the Appellate Division majority authored by Judge King. We add only the following to underscore our agreement with that decision.

A host’s duty to a social guest includes an obligation to warn of a known dangerous condition on the premises except when the guest is aware of the condition or by reasonable use of the facilities would observe it. Tighe v. Peterson, 356 N.J.Super. 322, 325, 812 A.2d 423 (App.Div.2002) (citing New Jersey ease law applying test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts). Courts employ a fact-sensitive analysis when determining whether a host has fulfilled his or her duty to warn a particular guest. In this case, we are satisfied that defendants did not have to warn their brother-in-law plaintiff of the configuration of their pool’s depth— that is, where the shallow part of the pool was situated and where the shallow end began its slope downward toward the deepest portion of this in-ground pool. Plaintiff had been in the pool approximately twenty times before and testified that he was well aware of where the shallow and deep portions were situated. He also stated that he knew not to dive into the shallow part of the pool.

These hosts did not breach any duty to warn plaintiff about the depth locations when they allowed him to use the pool on what he [242]*242said may have been his twenty-first occasion to swim there. Id. at 324, 812 A.2d 423. Plaintiff made an unfortunate error on that occasion, injuring himself on the sloped bottom close to the shallow end of the pool. It defies notions of reasonableness to regard plaintiff as being unaware of the slope of the pool bottom, or to conclude he could not reasonably have detected it from his use of the pool that day and on the many occasions before. Nor was there any evidence that defendants encouraged a dangerous use of this pool. Rather, we are confronted here with a plaintiff who acknowledged that at the moment of the injury it was he who was “horsing around.” Unfortunately, the accident happened. However, we agree with the majority below that, on these facts, there was no legal duty to warn owed by defendants to plaintiff.

The grant of summary judgment by the courts below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

814 A.2d 1066, 175 N.J. 240, 2002 N.J. LEXIS 1789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tighe-v-peterson-nj-2002.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack