Andrushchenko v. Silchuk

744 N.W.2d 850 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds invited Ps and their three-year-old son, D.A., over to their home for lunch. D.A. turned on the faucets and flooded the main floor bathroom. The Silchuk children and D.A. went upstairs to play. Mrs. Silchuk went upstairs and saw that D.A. was not playing with the other children. He was playing by himself in another area of the room. She closed the door to the bedroom where the baby was sleeping and rejoined the adults on the main floor. The baby was sleeping in the master bedroom, with access to the master bathroom, which had a whirlpool tub. She did not bring D.A. downstairs with her nor report to his parents that he was playing alone upstairs. D.A. screamed and was found in the bathtub in the master bathroom. He had opened the door of the baby's room, entered the master bathroom, turned on the hot water, and placed toys and other objects in the bathtub. He eventually wound up in the bathtub and the 160-degree water caused severe burns. The burns required plastic surgery. Metzger Construction, as the general contractor, hired M & M to install the water heaters. M & M claimed it set the thermostats at 125 degrees. Ps sued Ds for negligence. Ps claimed that D.A. was an invitee and Ds owed a duty of ordinary and reasonable care. Ps claim that Metzger had a duty to set the water heater thermostats at 120 F. as established by the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code and the water heater manuals and that Metzger's duty extends to third parties such as D.A. Ps claim that M & M had a duty to warn the Silchuks that the thermostat setting had a high risk of scalding. The court granted summary judgment for all Ds. The court determined that as a social guest D.A. had the status of licensee. Silchuks only owed a duty to warn of or make safe concealed dangerous conditions known to them at the time D.A. sustained his injuries. the court rejected Ps' gratuitous duty theory. Ps had not relinquished their responsibility to supervise D.A. while in the home. It also ruled that Silchuks had not agreed to assume the responsibility to supervise D.A. The court ruled that Metzger and M & M had not violated any ordinance, statute, or industry standard, which would have created a duty to D.A. Ps appealed.