The Accident:
Ryse Stollenwerck, a five-year-old boy with autism, was severely injured while playing at his mother’s boyfriend’s house. The boyfriend, Robert Schweggman Jr., was spinning another child around when they accidentally struck Ryse, causing serious injuries that left him wheelchair-bound and unable to speak.
Ryse’s father sued Schweggman and the homeowner, John Ehret, claiming negligence. They argued that Ehret, who lived in Texas and rarely visited the Louisiana property, was negligent in allowing Schweggman and his son to play unsupervised, leading to Ryse’s injuries. They also suggested that Ehret, knowing Schweggman’s employment history, should have been aware that he was not equipped to care for a young autistic child.
Ehret moved for summary judgment, arguing that he owed no duty to Ryse and had no obligation to supervise Schweggman or the children.
The trial court granted Ehret’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. The court emphasized that homeowners generally have no duty to protect others from the actions of third parties unless a “special relationship” exists, such as parent-child or employer-employee. In this case, no such relationship existed between Ehret and Schweggman. The court also noted that Ehret was unaware that Ryse and his mother were living in the house and had no knowledge of Schweggman’s activities with the children.
Key Takeaways:
This case highlights several important legal principles:
- Limited Duty of Care for Homeowners: Homeowners are not automatically responsible for injuries that occur on their property, especially when caused by the actions of third parties.
- Special Relationships and Duty to Protect: A duty to protect others from harm arises only in specific relationships, such as parent-child or employer-employee.
- Foreseeability and Negligence: A homeowner can be held liable for negligence if the injury was foreseeable and they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. However, in this case, the court found that Ehret had no reason to foresee the accident.
Conclusion:
The Stollenwerck case serves as a reminder of the limitations of a homeowner’s liability for injuries occurring on their property. While the outcome is undoubtedly heartbreaking for the Stollenwerck family, it reinforces the legal principle that homeowners are not automatically responsible for the actions of others on their premises.
Written By Berniard Law Firm
Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Homeowner’s Liability: Homeowner Liability Insurance Coverage Upheld for Harmful Accident and What happens if a roofer is injured while putting a new roof on your house?