Cuppy v. Bunch

Supreme Court of South Dakota · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyThird-party conductdutynegligencethird-party controlspecial relationship

Facts

White and Bunch, friends and next-door neighbors, spent part of the day drinking together before leaving Belle Fourche in separate vehicles with White driving ahead and telling Bunch to follow him or stay behind him. White had earlier driven Bunch back from a fishing pond while Bunch slept, then awakened him in Belle Fourche; Bunch said he did not feel all right but did not want to leave his vehicle there. White stopped once to check on Bunch and thought he seemed all right, and the two continued. Shortly before the collision, witnesses observed Bunch's vehicle swerving, and Bunch then crossed the center line and struck plaintiffs' vehicle, leaving plaintiffs no opportunity to avoid the crash.

Issue

Did White, by driving ahead of Bunch after telling him to follow and knowing facts about Bunch's condition, owe a legal duty to plaintiffs to protect them from harm caused by Bunch's driving? More specifically, did White have a duty to control Bunch's conduct or a duty arising from an undertaking that could support negligence liability to these third-party plaintiffs?

Rule

Actionable negligence requires a duty, breach, and injury resulting from the breach. As a general rule, there is no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent physical harm to another unless a special relation exists between the actor and the third person imposing such a duty, or a special relation exists between the actor and the injured person giving a right to protection; absent such a relation, and absent an actual undertaking recognized by law, no duty exists.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After an afternoon barbecue in Rapid City, Evan Cole knows his friend Nolan Price has been drinking heavily. Evan drives his own pickup ahead of Nolan's car and tells Nolan to stay behind him on the highway toward Spearfish. Ten minutes later, Nolan drifts across the center line and injures a family in another car.

In the family's negligence action against Evan, which is the best argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. Actionable negligence requires duty, breach, and injury. The majority rule is that there is no duty to control a third person's conduct to prevent physical harm to another unless there is a special relation between the actor and the third person, or between the actor and the injured person, giving rise to such a duty. Mere friendship, knowledge of impairment, and traveling ahead of the other driver do not create that duty.