Andrushchenko v. Silchuk
744 N.W.2d 850, 2008 SD 8, 2008 S.D. LEXIS 8 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty to a social guest, classified as a licensee, is limited to warning of known, concealed, dangerous conditions. Contractors who install equipment in a home owe no duty to third parties unless that duty is established by a specific statute, ordinance, or common law principle that was in effect at the time of installation.
Facts:
- Alex and Nataliya Andrushchenko took their three-year-old son, D.A., to the home of Ivan and Lyuba Silchuk for lunch.
- A few months prior, Metzger Construction, as the general contractor, hired M & M Plumbing-HVAC to install water heaters in the Silchuks' newly constructed home.
- Early in the visit, D.A. turned on faucets and flooded a bathroom on the main floor.
- Later, D.A. went upstairs with other children to play. Mrs. Silchuk went upstairs, saw D.A. playing by himself in a separate area, closed the door to a bedroom where a baby was sleeping, and returned downstairs without D.A.
- D.A.'s parents remained on the main floor and were present in the home during the entire visit.
- Shortly thereafter, the adults heard D.A. scream and found him in the master bathroom bathtub.
- D.A. had turned on the hot water, which was approximately 160° F, and either climbed in or slipped into the tub, causing severe burns.
Procedural Posture:
- The Andrushchenkos, as guardians for their minor child D.A., sued the Silchuks, Metzger Construction, and M & M Plumbing-HVAC in a South Dakota circuit court (trial court) for negligence.
- All defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
- The Andrushchenkos submitted affidavits in opposition, which the circuit court excluded due to lack of foundation and relevancy.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, ruling they did not owe a duty of care to D.A.
- The Andrushchenkos appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do homeowners and the contractors who built their house owe a duty of care to a three-year-old social guest who is injured by scalding hot tap water, when the homeowners were unaware of the specific danger and the contractors complied with the applicable building codes?
Opinions:
Majority - Meierhenry, J.
No. The homeowners and contractors do not owe a duty of care under these circumstances. As a social guest, D.A. was a licensee, and the Silchuks' only duty was to warn of concealed, dangerous conditions known to them. The Andrushchenkos failed to produce any evidence that the Silchuks knew the water temperature presented a scalding danger. Furthermore, the Silchuks did not undertake a gratuitous duty to supervise D.A., as his parents were present and never relinquished their parental responsibility. The contractors, Metzger and M & M, had no duty established by statute or common law, as the applicable plumbing code did not mandate a maximum temperature setting below 210° F, and other evidence of an industry standard was properly excluded for lack of foundation.
Dissenting - Sabers, J.
Yes, as to homeowner Lyuba Silchuk. Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Mrs. Silchuk's direct negligence. She was aware D.A. was an 'aggressive three-year-old boy,' observed him playing by himself on a separate floor, and left him there unsupervised. This created a foreseeable risk of harm. Given that a young child is unlikely to be found negligent and everything can be an 'attractive nuisance' to him, a jury should be allowed to determine whether Mrs. Silchuk's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law categories for premises liability in South Dakota, maintaining a clear distinction between the duties owed to licensees and invitees. It establishes a high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, requiring proof of a landowner's actual knowledge of a specific, concealed danger to hold them liable for injuries to social guests. The case also highlights the critical importance of proper evidentiary foundation, demonstrating that a failure to authenticate documents like industry manuals can be fatal to establishing a contractor's duty of care. This precedent makes it more difficult for social guests to recover for injuries unless they can provide concrete evidence of the landowner's prior knowledge or a contractor's violation of a specific, applicable code.
