Estate of Carl a Stamm IV v. Erik King, 325221

Background

Decedent Carl Stamm (20) spent the evening at Erik King’s parents’ home drinking; Erik (21) bought a 12-pack and drank several beers; Stamm drank whiskey mixed from a water bottle in the basement refrigerator.
Stamm left early morning on his motorcycle, was clocked >100 mph, fled from a deputy, and collided with a police cruiser, dying from his injuries.
Plaintiff sued Erik and his parents, Robert and LeAnne King, alleging wrongful death based on social-host liability under MCL 436.1701 (furnishing alcohol to minors) and MCL 750.141a (knowingly allowing minor to possess/consume alcohol on premises).
Defendants moved for summary disposition; trial court granted dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo (treated as C(10)) and affirmed: no evidence that defendants furnished alcohol to Stamm and no evidence that the parents knowingly allowed him to possess/consume alcohol; Erik lacked the statutory “control” over the residence required for liability under MCL 750.141a.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Erik “furnished” alcohol in violation of MCL 436.1701	Erik’s purchase and presence at the gathering made it likely Stamm drank Erik’s beer and thus Erik furnished alcohol	No evidence Stamm drank Erik’s beer; Stamm drank whiskey from a bottle in the refrigerator	No — record lacks evidence Stamm consumed Erik’s beer; speculation insufficient to create factual dispute
Whether Robert/LeAnne knowingly allowed a minor to possess/consume alcohol under MCL 750.141a	Testimony showing permissive hosting and prior underage drinking in basement means parents knowingly allowed the conduct	Parents had no actual knowledge that Stamm was drinking that night and did not go to the basement	No — no record evidence of actual knowledge by parents
Whether Erik was an "owner, tenant, or other person having control" over the residence under MCL 750.141a	Erik, as an adult child living there, could have told Stamm to stop or to leave — thus had sufficient authority/control	Erik lacked possessory or regulatory authority over the home; mere ability to ask someone to leave does not equal statutory control	No — Erik did not have the authority to regulate or govern conduct on the premises as required by statute
Whether constructive knowledge suffices for MCL 750.141a culpability	Plaintiff argues permissive course of conduct (past underage drinking) imputes allowance	Statute requires that the violator "knowingly" allow conduct; knowledge means actual, not constructive, knowledge	No — statute requires actual knowledge; constructive knowledge cannot replace it

Key Cases Cited

Auto Club Group Ins Co v Burchell, 249 Mich. App. 468 (2002) (standard of review for summary disposition)
Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich. 358 (1996) (materials considered on MCR 2.116(C)(10))
Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich. 446 (1999) ((C)(10) tests factual sufficiency)
Farmers Ins Exch v AAA of Mich, 256 Mich. App. 691 (2003) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
Cuddington v United Health Servs, Inc, 298 Mich. App. 264 (2012) (treating grants as C(10) when court considered materials outside pleadings)
People v Neumann, 85 Mich. 98 (1891) (defining "furnish" as letting a minor have liquor; control/consent sufficient)
Ghaffari v Turner Const Co, 268 Mich. App. 460 (2005) (speculation insufficient to create factual issue)
Christensen v Parrish, 82 Mich. App. 409 (1978) ("knowingly" implies actual knowledge; mere presence not enough under MCL 750.141a)
Echelon Homes, LLC v Carter Lumber Co, 472 Mich. 192 (2005) (distinguishing actual vs constructive knowledge)