Younce v. Ferguson
724 P.2d 991, 106 Wash. 2d 658 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty of care is determined by the common law classifications of entrants as invitees, licensees, or trespassers. A social guest who pays a nominal fee to attend a party on private property is classified as a licensee, not an invitee, and is owed a lesser duty of care regarding known or obvious dangers.
Facts:
- Dean Strunk, a high school senior, arranged a graduation 'kegger' party with his classmates.
- Tickets were sold for $4 to cover the cost of beer, food, and music, and Dean used the proceeds to purchase 15 kegs of beer.
- The party was moved to a large parcel of farmland leased by Dean's parents, Charles and Thelma Strunk.
- Lisa Younce, a minor, attended the party after her friend paid for their admission tickets.
- The party was attended by 100 to 400 minors, many of whom were consuming alcohol.
- Tamera Ferguson, another minor attendee who became intoxicated from alcohol consumed at the party, drove her car and struck Lisa Younce from behind.
- Prior to the accident, Charles and Thelma Strunk were informed by several people that the party was on their property but did not check the specific parcel where it was located.
- After being notified of the accident, Charles and Thelma Strunk went to the property and cooked for the attendees until the party ended.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Younce sued Tamera Ferguson and the Strunk family in the trial court.
- The trial court found Tamera Ferguson negligent and entered a judgment for damages against her.
- The trial court dismissed Younce's claim against the Strunks for negligence per se (furnishing alcohol to a minor).
- Regarding the premises liability claim, the trial court found that Lisa Younce was a licensee.
- Applying the standard of care owed to a licensee, the trial court found the Strunks had not breached their duty and dismissed the claim against them with prejudice.
- Lisa Younce (appellant) appealed the dismissal of her claim against the Strunks (respondents) to the Court of Appeals.
- The case was administratively transferred to the Supreme Court of Washington for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner's duty of care to an injured person on their property depend on that person's common law status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser, and was a minor who paid a fee to attend a 'kegger' party on the property a licensee rather than an invitee?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodloe, J.
Yes. A landowner's duty of care depends on an entrant's common law status, and a social guest is properly classified as a licensee even if they paid a fee to attend a party. The court reaffirms its adherence to the traditional common law classifications of invitee, licensee, and trespasser to determine the duty owed by a landowner, rejecting a unified standard of 'reasonable care under all circumstances'. The court reasons that these classifications provide stability and predictability in the law, representing a developed jurisprudence that should not be discarded. Younce was a licensee, not an invitee, because she was a social guest. The property was not held open to the public in a way that created an implied assurance of safety, which is the hallmark of invitee status. The $4 admission fee was for party costs and did not confer the status of a business visitor or public invitee. As a licensee, the Strunks' duty was limited to warning against known, hidden dangers that a licensee would not be expected to discover. The court concluded this duty was not breached because the risks associated with a large party involving intoxicated minors and vehicles were not hidden, and Younce knew or should have known of the risks involved.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Washington's adherence to the traditional, status-based approach to premises liability, positioning the state with the majority of jurisdictions that resist the modern trend toward a single, unified standard of reasonable care. The case clarifies that social gatherings, even large ones with a paid admission, do not elevate a guest's status from a licensee to an invitee, thereby limiting the landowner's duty. This precedent reinforces a clear distinction in landowner liability, ensuring that the higher duty of care owed to invitees is reserved for situations with a clear public or business purpose, rather than private social functions.
Unlock the full brief for Younce v. Ferguson