DENNIS WHITE, ETC. VS. JAMES ASTACIOÂ (L-4771-11, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3654-15T3

Defendants (homeowners James and Doris Astacio) allowed Doris's sister and brother-in-law to host a backyard 16th‑birthday party at their home; Doris was not present and James mostly stayed away from the backyard.
Adult guest Dafiq Rasheed jumped into the pool, began to struggle, was rescued by other adult guests (Christopher and Jason) who entered the pool and pulled him out; CPR and EMT care followed but Dafiq later died.
Plaintiff (Dafiq's father, Dennis White) sued for survivorship and wrongful death, alleging defendants breached duties by failing to provide a shepherd's crook and by failing to designate a trained "water watcher" during the pool party.
Plaintiff’s expert (Dr. Pia) relied on American Red Cross recommendations and opined those omissions were substantial contributing factors to the drowning.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing they owed no enhanced duty to an adult social guest who was familiar with the pool; the trial court granted summary judgment and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether homeowners owed a heightened "reasonable care" duty (beyond disclosure/neutralization of latent hazards) to an adult social guest at a party hosted by others	Homeowners had a duty to exercise reasonable care (per Hanna/Model Jury Charge) when activity (pool party) was conducted on their premises and thus must provide safety measures (shepherd's crook, water watcher)	Homeowners owed only the ordinary duty of a landowner to disclose or correct known dangers; no special duty to improve safety for a social guest familiar with the pool (Tighe/Parks)	Court held no heightened duty; owners need not provide greater safety than for themselves—guest familiarity and lack of hidden hazard defeat duty theory
Whether the alleged omissions (no shepherd's crook; no designated water watcher) proximately caused Dafiq's death, precluding summary judgment	Expert said a water watcher with a shepherd's crook could have rescued Dafiq before submersion and thus those omissions were substantial contributing causes	Defendants showed prompt observation and rescue by guests (Christopher jumped in within ~1 minute), CPR was immediate, and expert conceded the actions taken were appropriate and faster than using a crook; thus no reasonable factfinder could find proximate causation	Court held plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of proximate cause; even assuming breaches, they did not proximately cause death, so summary judgment proper

Tighe v. Peterson, 175 N.J. 240 (affirming limits on homeowner duties to social guests)
Parks v. Rogers, 176 N.J. 491 (landowner duty limited to disclosure/correction of known dangers; no greater safety required for social guests)
Hanna v. Stone, 329 N.J. Super. 385 (App. Div.) (discussing when an activity on premises may impose a duty on the person conducting the activity)
Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (standards for causation and when summary judgment is appropriate on causation)