In the case of Casey v. Jones, 2022-Ohio-1841, the court held that a homeowner was not negligent when an intruder attacked her social guest.
Here, a guest was at a homeowner’s home for social purposes and was attacked by an intruder. The guest argued that the homeowner failed to ensure the guest’s safety while at the home, failed to reduce an unreasonable risk of harm by not providing adequate security, and negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the guest. The homeowner argued that she had no duty to protect the guest from the criminal conduct of a third party and there was no dangerous condition present on the property itself that the homeowner would have had a duty to remove. The Court agreed with the homeowner.
In support of its decision, the Court reasoned that the guest was a social guest when he was on the premises and the homeowner owed him no duty to ensure the premises were in a safe condition. The only duty a homeowner owes to a social guest is 1) ordinary care not to cause injury to the social guest; and 2) to warn the guest of a dangerous condition that the owner is aware of and that the guest is not aware of. The Court further found that because the guest was injured by a third-party intruder that had no special relationship to the homeowner, there was no duty of the homeowner to control the conduct of the third party.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.