Noe v. Housel, 153 N.E.3d 941

Background

On January 15, 2016, Janelle Noe attended a party at a Toledo residence. An intoxicated, underage guest (Christopher Housel) poured high‑proof Everclear onto a lit candle and a fireball ignited, burning Noe and causing permanent injuries.
Noe and her parents sued multiple defendants (including co‑tenants/roommates John Talbot and Clinton Caddell) alleging negligence, social‑host liability under R.C. 4301.69(B), and other claims; several defendants were later dismissed.
Talbot and Caddell moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it. Appellants appealed, contesting (1) landlord Leis’s knowledge (later dismissed/moot), (2) that R.C. 4301.69(B) imposes civil liability on co‑tenants, and (3) that Talbot and Caddell were negligent social hosts who failed to warn or intervene.
Appellants also asked the court to take judicial notice that Everclear is 190 proof (highly flammable) to show foreseeability.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo, rejected appellants’ arguments, declined the requested judicial notice, and affirmed summary judgment for Talbot and Caddell.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 4301.69(B) creates a private civil cause of action against co‑tenants who "allow" underage drinking	R.C. 4301.69(B) imposes social‑host liability on occupants who knowingly allow underage consumption	The statute creates a criminal misdemeanor only and contains no private right of action; legislative silence shows no civil remedy	Court: R.C. 4301.69(B) is penal and does not authorize a private civil action; summary judgment for defendants granted
Whether Talbot and Caddell owed and breached a common‑law social‑host duty to warn or intervene (negligence)	As co‑tenants/co‑hosts they had a duty to exercise ordinary care, warn, or restrain an intoxicated roommate known to play with fire	They did not invite Noe, did not cause the act, were not present for the critical conduct (one defendant), and no special duty arose; conduct was Housel’s sudden, unforeseeable act	Court: No genuine issue that defendants were social hosts who caused Noe’s injury or breached a duty; summary judgment affirmed
Whether the court should take judicial notice that Everclear is 190 proof to establish foreseeability	Judicial notice of Everclear’s extreme flammability is proper and shows foreseeable risk from a drunken person playing with fire	The fact was not timely supported, is disputed, and not appropriate for judicial notice on these facts	Court: Declined to take judicial notice; even if noticed, it would not eliminate negligence elements or create a genuine issue of material fact

Key Cases Cited

Scheibel v. Lipton, 156 Ohio St. 308, 102 N.E.2d 453 (1951) (defines social‑guest status and host duties to guests)
Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989) (elements of negligence and foreseeability in proximate cause)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996) (summary judgment burden and opposing party’s duty to produce specific facts)
State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570 (1998) (statutory interpretation: distinguishing criminal vs. civil remedies)
Lesnau v. Andate Enterprises, Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 467, 756 N.E.2d 97 (2001) (discusses civil liability in contexts where statute expressly provides or previously tracked liability provisions)
Di Gildo v. Caponi, 18 Ohio St.2d 125, 247 N.E.2d 732 (1969) (discusses duty of care and special standards for infant guests)