Hansberger v. Smith, 142 A.3d 679

Background

On July 12, 2008, two “field parties” with underage drinking occurred in Frederick County; after a fight at the second party (on the Smith farm) Ronald Lewis threw a piece of concrete that struck and permanently injured Michael Hansberger. Lewis pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment and was later held liable in a separate judgment.
Hansberger sued Lewis, the Riley family (owners of the first-party property), the Smith family (owners/occupants of the second-party property), and several corporate property owners in a complaint filed July 12, 2011. Some defendants were added by amendment in 2013.
Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The circuit court dismissed claims against the Rileys, granted summary judgment for the Smiths and Jefferson Valley, and dismissed the late-added property owners and Catherine Smith as time-barred.
After briefing and argument, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed: it held Hansberger failed to plead or produce evidence that defendants “knowingly and willfully” allowed minors to possess/consume alcohol as required for the limited social-host negligence recognized in Kiriakos, and he produced no evidence of prior similar violent episodes to support premises liability.
The court also held the discovery rule did not permit addition of new defendants added in 2013 because Hansberger knew the nature of his injury in 2008 and could have discovered and named those defendants earlier; those claims were time-barred.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether homeowners/hosts owed negligent "social host" duty for underage drinking that led to injury	Hansberger: CR §10-117 and public policy create a duty; defendants negligently/illegally furnished or allowed alcohol to minors at field parties	Defs: No evidence they "knowingly and willfully" allowed minors to possess/consume alcohol on their residence/curtilage as required by law	Held: No. Plaintiff failed to allege/produce evidence of the "knowing and willful" standard required; social-host negligence not established
Whether premises liability applies for rubble on Smith property and foreseeable third-party violence	Hansberger: Owners had duty to remove/warn about dangerous rubble and prevent foreseeable harm	Defs: Injury resulted from an intentional criminal act by a third party; owners lacked prior knowledge of similar criminal conduct and did not control condition	Held: No. No evidence of prior similar criminal incidents or owner control/knowledge sufficient to impose duty; summary judgment affirmed
Whether CR §10-117(a) (furnishing alcohol) creates third-party negligence claim	Hansberger: Violation of §10-117(a) supports negligence claim	Defs: §10-117(a) does not create the limited social-host cause of action recognized in Kiriakos	Held: No. Court declines to extend negligence liability from §10-117(a); Kiriakos’ holding centered on the "knowing and willful" requirement of §10-117(b)
Whether adding defendants in 2013 was timely under discovery rule	Hansberger: He discovered additional defendants during discovery and timely added them	Defs: Plaintiff knew of injury in 2008 and, with due diligence, could have named defendants within the three-year limitations period	Held: No. Discovery rule did not toll limitations for new defendants; adding new parties after limitations expired was improper; those claims dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Rounds v. Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 441 Md. 621 (review standard for motion to dismiss) (assume truth of complaint allegations on a dismissal review)
Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. v. Neal, 398 Md. 705 (summary judgment standard; independent appellate review)
Myers v. Kayhoe, 391 Md. 188 (construe record in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
Blackburn Ltd. P’ship v. Paul, 438 Md. 100 (Statute or Ordinance Rule; statutory violation may establish prima facie negligence)
Scott v. Watson, 278 Md. 160 (premises liability where owner knew or should have known of criminal activity)
Troxel v. Iguana Cantina, LLC, 201 Md. App. 476 (duty to protect where prior similar violent incidents made assaults foreseeable)