Wickham v. Hopkins
250 P.3d 245
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Wickham, an 18-year-old Arizona resident, was injured at a party hosted at the Hopkinses' home.
- Mueller, Jan Hopkins's coworker, was hired to stay at the home to watch Tricia and supervise guests during the Hopkinses' vacation.
- The party drew about 70 young people who consumed beer and socialized at the Hopkinses' home.
- A confrontation occurred outside in the street after Wickham left the kitchen; Dulara and his group attacked Wickham.
- Carvella threw a rock that struck Wickham in the face, causing serious injuries, while Wickham was leaving the premises when the injury occurred.
- Wickham and his parents sued the Hopkinses for negligence, negligent supervision, premises liability, and vicarious liability for Mueller; Hopkinses moved for summary judgment arguing Wickham was a licensee and that no duty existed off the premises, which the trial court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty on premises to a licensee | Wickham argues Hopkinses owed a duty to protect him as a licensee. | Hopkinses contend only a limited duty to licensees existed on premises, which was not violated. | No duty owed to Wickham on premises; limited duty not breached. |
| Duty off the premises after licensee leaves | Wickham argues a duty of reasonable care extended off the premises. | Hopkinses argue no duty arises off premises; no relationship existed after Wickham left. | No duty to Wickham off the premises; no duty-creating relationship. |
| Foreseeability as a factor in duty | Wickham suggests foreseeability supports imposing a duty. | Hopkinses rely on Gipson that foreseeability is not a duty factor. | Foreseeability not a factor in establishing duty. |
| Voluntary undertaking and public policy | Wickham cites voluntary undertakings by hosts as creating a duty. | No evidence Hopkinses or Mueller undertook to protect Wickham after departure; Restatement sections inapplicable. | No duty created by voluntary undertakings; no public policy supports duty here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (Ariz. 2007) (duty elements; foreseeability not a factor in duty analysis)
- Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500 (Ariz. 1983) (duty defined by general duty to avoid unreasonable risk; policy considerations)
- Lips v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp., 224 Ariz. 266 (Ariz. 2010) (voluntary undertaking of duty can create liability)
- Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., 102 Ariz. 312 (Ariz. 1967) (distinction between licensees and invitees)
- Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc., 131 Ariz. 140 (Ariz. 1982) (premises liability duties to business entrants)
- Stephens v. Bashas' Inc., 186 Ariz. 427 (Ariz. 1996) (business invitee duty distinctions)
- O'Rielly Motor Co. v. Rich, 3 Ariz.App. 21 (Ariz. App. 1966) (premises liability context for invitees)
- Estate of Hernandez v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 177 Ariz. 244 (Ariz. 1994) (duty considerations in institutional setting)