Summary
The Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a wrongful-death negligence complaint arising from a shooting at a house party. The court held that the social-host allegations did not establish a special business-invitor relationship or make the criminal shooting reasonably foreseeable. The court also considered and rejected, or found forfeited, the argument that the defendants voluntarily assumed a duty by advertising weapon checks.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged that Katherine Menzies had a duty to protect Wilson from the criminal or careless acts of third parties at the house party based on a special relationship.
- Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged that the shooting was reasonably foreseeable.
- Whether the defendants voluntarily assumed a duty of care by advertising that partygoers would be searched for weapons.
- Whether plaintiff should receive an opportunity to file a sixth amended complaint or conduct additional discovery.
Holdings
- A social host does not have the special relationship of a business invitor to an invitee merely because the host advertises a house party on Facebook and charges an admission fee; the allegations therefore did not establish a special relationship imposing a duty to protect Wilson from third-party criminal acts.
- The complaint did not sufficiently plead that the shooting was reasonably foreseeable, so defendants owed no duty to Wilson on that basis.
- The defendants did not voluntarily assume a duty to protect Wilson from weapons or gunfire, and plaintiff forfeited the issue by failing to plead a voluntary undertaking in the complaint.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to file a sixth amended complaint or conduct additional discovery because she did not identify any material allegation that would establish defendants owed Wilson a duty.
Key quotations
“However, there is an exception to this rule consisting of two elements: first, there must be a special relationship between the parties, and second, the criminal act must have been reasonably foreseeable.” (¶ 15)
“The law does not impose a duty on a party host to be omnipresent or omniscient.” (¶ 25)
“The theory is narrowly construed.” (¶ 34)
Factual background
Katherine Menzies hosted a Halloween party at a house owned by Joanne Menzies, advertised it on Facebook, and charged a $15 admission fee. The complaint alleged that the advertisement stated that party organizers would be searching guests at the door and were armed and dangerous, and that Katherine knew of a prior party where gunshots had been fired. More than 200 people attended, and Shaft Wilson Jr. was shot and killed by a stray bullet; the complaint did not identify the shooter or specify where the shooting or alleged gun-related horseplay occurred.
Procedural history
McKelvy sued Joanne and Katherine Menzies for damages arising from Shaft Wilson Jr.'s death after he was struck by a stray bullet at a Halloween party hosted by Katherine at Joanne's home. The circuit court previously dismissed amended complaints without prejudice and ultimately granted both defendants' section 2-615 motions, finding that neither defendant owed Wilson a duty because the shooting was not reasonably foreseeable. The appellate court affirmed.