FELIX PEGUERO VS. TAU KAPPA EPSILON LOCAL CHAPTER, TAU
KAPPA EPSILON NATIONAL CHAPTER, GREG SPINNER AND
THOMAS PRICE, ET AL.
A-5419-12T4
Plaintiff attended a large party hosted at a private residence rented by several fraternity members. After consuming several drinks, plaintiff interceded in an argument that erupted in the backyard among other persons who were at the party. While trying to assist a friend involved in that argument, plaintiff was shot and wounded by another person who was at the party. The shooter was never apprehended or identified. There was no evidence that the fraternity had any past incidents involving guns on the premises or involving violent criminal behavior. There was also no proof that the shooter was a minor or a visibly intoxicated person who had been served alcohol at the party.
Plaintiff brought a negligence action against the national fraternity, the local fraternity chapter, and several students who were leaders or members of the fraternity. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.
A-5419-12T4
Plaintiff attended a large party hosted at a private residence rented by several fraternity members. After consuming several drinks, plaintiff interceded in an argument that erupted in the backyard among other persons who were at the party. While trying to assist a friend involved in that argument, plaintiff was shot and wounded by another person who was at the party. The shooter was never apprehended or identified. There was no evidence that the fraternity had any past incidents involving guns on the premises or involving violent criminal behavior. There was also no proof that the shooter was a minor or a visibly intoxicated person who had been served alcohol at the party.
Plaintiff brought a negligence action against the national fraternity, the local fraternity chapter, and several students who were leaders or members of the fraternity. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.
We affirm the summary judgment order because we agree with
the motion judge that there was no evidence showing that it was
reasonably foreseeable that plaintiff would have been shot by a
third party while attending an event hosted by the fraternity
members. Hence, defendants breached no legal duty to plaintiff
and were entitled to a judgment dismissing his negligence
claims. For various reasons, the circumstances presented here
are distinguishable from those in Clohesy v. Food Circus
Supermarkets, 149 N.J. 496 (1997) and Butler v. Acme Markets,
Inc., 89 N.J. 270 (1982), in which the Supreme Court recognized
that the defendant supermarket owners owed a duty to protect
their patrons from foreseeable criminal acts occurring on their
premises.
