would be required to spend the night, and that he intended to prevent minors from leaving the party if they had been drinking. He also admitted in his deposition, submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to his motion for summary judgment, that he had assumed responsibility for making sure that if the guests drank beer they would be safe, and that he was "trying to be responsible for [the guests'] welfare by keeping them with me at home." He also testified that it was his intent and that he undertook to "keep an eye on things and make sure nobody got hurt."
Worley argues that he abandoned any duty he might have assumed by failing to enforce the rule, but his failure to enforce the rule is the verynegligence of which the plaintiffs complain. Worley could have abandoned the duty by canceling the party, but once the guests had been invited, had arrived, and had begun drinking, Worley was not in a position to abandon the duty he had undertaken to protect them. Indeed, Worley's own testimony reflects that he continued to execute his duty well after the party started; he stated in his deposition that he "patrolled and walked around" in an attempt to "keep an eye on things" during the party.
Worley argues that even if he assumed a duty to protect the guests who were invited to the party, he did not assume a duty as to either Jennifer or Brown, because Brown testified that they were unaware of the rule that guests who