FARWELL V. KEATON case brief

 FARWELL V. KEATON

• Special relationship between Siegrist and Farwell – they were friends

• articulates an exception to the general rule (a nonmonetary exception)

• two specific justifications for finding duty:

• partial rescue: Siegrist drove Farwell around and put an ice pack on his head

• the two were on a social venture – implicit in such a common undertaking is the understanding that one will provide help to the other if he is in peril

• dissenting opinion stresses that there is no authority who determines that social ventures give rise to a duty to rescue

• in order for there to be a special relationship in these types of co-ventures, they have to embark upon a hazardous undertaking in which there was an explicit or implicit risk and parties rely on each other to help if there’s trouble

• dissenting judges did not see Siegrist’s and Farwell’s venture as inherently hazardous (they were just trying to pick up girls)

Restatement 324 – p. 141 – a person who takes charge of another who is helpless is subject to liability for failing to exercise reasonable care

• Ronald M (p. 141) P was one of ten kids riding around in a car, some of whom were drinking and taking drugs. Suit was brought against members of the group who had not been under the influence for their alleged failure to restrain the driver before his negligence injured others in the group. The court affirmed the granting of summary judgment for the defendant – no liability.

• Distinct from Farwell: the defendants are all minors, they were not engaging in substance use (they were the good kids - unlike Siegrist)

• partial rescue component is absent in this case – defendants did not take control over P