Our Supreme Court granted leave to defendants Henry Trino, Charlene Trino, Airel Trino, and Kevin Garcia to appeal the denial of their summary judgment motions to dismiss the complaint by plaintiffs Silvana Lansigan Delvalle, as administrator of Raniel Hernandez's estate and individually, and Ralph Hernandez. These appeals were calendared back-to-back and consolidated to issue a single opinion.
Plaintiffs' common law claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as the claim based on the principal of Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88 (1980), arise from the accidental drowning of their son Raniel, while he was swimming, intoxicated, at a pool party hosted by the Trinos.
The trial court denied summary judgment to defendants on the ground there were genuine issues of material facts in dispute with respect to their negligence. As to Garcia, the dispute involved his active role in Raniel's drowning. Concerning the Trinos, the dispute involved the common law duty owed to an intoxicated Raniel and the implementation of reasonable pool safety protections to prevent his drowning. The motion court did not address dismissal of plaintiffs' intentional infliction of emotional distress and Portee claims.
We reverse. Garcia should have been granted summary judgment because the undisputed record indicates he had no role in Raniel's decision to enter the pool, nor did he have a duty to rescue Raniel. Furthermore, there is no indication Garcia failed to exercise good faith when he tried to save Raniel. The Trinos should have been granted summary judgment because the Social Host Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.5 to 5.8, does not govern plaintiff's drowning and, under our current state law, they owed Raniel no common law duty to prevent him from swimming while intoxicated. As for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and Portee claims, they fail as a matter of law. Defendants' conduct in not knowing or indicating how Raniel drowned did not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, and there is no viable Portee claim because plaintiffs did not witness the drowning.
