Wickham v. Hopkins, CA-CV09-0523 (Court of Appeals, April, 2011).  The Plaintiff was injured in an altercation near the home of the Defendant and filed a lawsuit against the homeowners.  In March, 2006 the Defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Hopkins went on vacation, hired a third party to stay at their home while they were gone and watch their 14 year old daughter.  During this time, their daughter invited several friends to the home which amassed to a party of approximately 70 people drinking beer, listening to music and socializing.  The Plaintiff arrived at the party and got into an argument with another attendee.  As he was leaving, walking down the street to his vehicle he was confronted by another party attendee who picked up a river rock and through the rock at the Plaintiff striking him in the face causing extensive serious injuries. The homeowners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the trial court granted specifically holding as follows: The question of duty in the undisputed factual context of this case is one of law for this court.  The court declines Plaintiff’s invitation to extend the duty of care by a homeowner or their minor child who host a party to a person who attended the party who is injured off the premises by the conduct of others who left the premises.  Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s dismissal contending that the homeowners owed him a duty to protect him from injuries resulting from the party at their home.  The appellate court noted that in Arizona the duty owed by a landlord to an entrant on the property is determined by the status of the entrant as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser.  The appellate court determined that the Plaintiff was only a licensee and the homeowners owed him no duty than “other than to refrain from knowingly let him run upon a hidden peril or wantonly or willfully causing him harm.” The appellate court also went on to analyze and examine the relationship between Plaintiff and the Defendant/homeowners and the applicable public policy considerations.  The appellate court was unable to identify any duty creating relationship between Plaintiff and the Defendant/homeowners at the time of Plaintiff’s injury.  The appellate court noted that the duty owed to business invitees is significantly greater and more comprehensive than duty owed to licensees which the court determined was Plaintiff’s status. This court  further noted that it could not base the existence of a duty on the asserted foreseeability that someone could be hurt in altercation on the street as a result of the party at the home.   In Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz., 141, 143 (2007), the Arizona Supreme Court held that public policy may support the recognition of a duty of care.  Public policy may be found in state statutory laws or the common laws.  In the case herein, there are no applicable statutes that might create or impose a duty on the part of the homeowners for Plaintiff’s safety.  Nor is there any evidence that the homeowners furnished alcohol that was consumed at the party.  In the case herein, the appellate court noted that “merely providing location for a social gathering does not automatically implicate a public policy creating a duty to take action to protect Plaintiff after he left the premises.”  Wickham, page 14  Further the court noted nor did providing a location for the party create an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff.  In summary a homeowner is not responsible for injuries sustained by a licensee who is injured as a result of a fight that takes place off premises.]]>