Credit: Marian Weyo/Shutterstock.com

Several young adults (all below the legal drinking age) partied in the bedroom of one of them with vodka and beer bought from a liquor store. After the party, the car driven by one of the inebriated young adults turned over, killing a second (coincidentally, the purchaser of the liquor). The usual wrongful death litigation commenced and was settled, but there was one new addition. The young adult who hosted the party in his bedroom was third-partied. Summary judgment in favor of the third-party host was affirmed by the Appellate Division.

Although New Jersey has statutory and common law public policies designed to deter social hosts from providing alcohol to persons who are too inebriated to drive, these policies did not extend to a young adult host living in his parents' home—at least until now. On June 6, in a well-crafted opinion by Judge Sabatino, the Appellate Division held that “an adult who is under the legal drinking age shall owe injured parties a duty under the common law to desist from facilitating drinking by [other] underage adults in his or her place of residence.” Estate of Brandon Tyler Narleski, et al v. Nicholas Gomes, et al, A-5144-17T4.

But this “logical extension of case law” was not imposed on the social host before the Court. One reason was that it might not have been reasonably anticipated by him. Another reason was that the Appellate Division discerned “no equitable or practical necessity to impose such a principle retroactively.” Indeed, “[o]ut of respect for the greater authority of the Supreme Court and Legislature,” the Court deferred the effective date of its prospective holding for 180 days “to enable possible further judicial review or responsive legislation.”

Whether new common law should be applied retrospectively is a question of some complexity. See, e.g., Fischer v. Canario, 143 N.J. 235, 243-248 (1996) (three factors and four options should be considered). Here, however, in the context of an intermediate appellate decision, where the Supreme Court and the Legislature could become involved if they so desired, prospective application in 180 days seems exactly right.