P was thirteen years old at the time. D's daughter was fourteen. P was invited to spend the night in D's home. P's mother contacted D to confirm the invitation and to provide certain rules that her daughter was to follow. D agreed to those rules and would be at home to supervise the girls. P's father dropped her off at the D home. D went to the lake and decided to remain there overnight, leaving the two girls alone and unsupervised. D's daughter called her mother and confirmed that D would not return home that night. The girls then drank alcohol that they found in the home and made plans to invite some older male acquaintances of D's daughter to come over. The young men, who were in their late teens and early twenties, brought more alcohol to the home. The girls became inebriated and had sexual intercourse with two of the men. Murray (D), the man with whom P had intercourse, was nineteen at the time and was subsequently convicted of statutory rape. P sued Ds. P claimed that D 'was grossly negligent' in leaving P and D's daughter 'completely unsupervised.' D sought summary judgment claiming she did not have a duty to protect P from criminal conduct and that P's injuries were caused by her own intentional conduct and Murray's (D) criminal conduct. D got a summary judgment, and P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.