Depue v. Flatau

Minnesota Supreme Court · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyPremises liabilitydutynegligenceinviteeguest

Facts

Plaintiff, a cattle buyer, came to defendants' farm to inspect cattle and later stayed for supper at the invitation of Flatau, Sr. While preparing to leave, plaintiff became seriously ill and weak, and there was evidence that defendants observed his condition; Flatau, Jr., helped him into his cutter and saw he could not hold the reins, throwing them over plaintiff's shoulders and starting the team toward town. Soon after leaving, plaintiff suffered another fainting spell, fell from the cutter, lay outside all night, and was found nearly frozen, resulting in amputation of several fingers and other injuries. Plaintiff claimed defendants wrongfully exposed him to danger by sending him away unattended despite knowing or having reason to know of his helpless condition.

Issue

Did defendants owe plaintiff a duty of care after he became seriously ill while present in their home as an invited guest, and was the evidence sufficient to let a jury decide whether defendants knew or should have known that sending him away unattended would endanger him?

Rule

Whenever a person is placed in such a position with regard to another that it is obvious that, if he does not use due care in his own conduct, he will cause injury to that person, a duty arises to exercise care commensurate with the situation to avoid the danger. This principle applies in noncontract relations and, at least where a person is present by invitation and becomes helpless, the law requires others not to take affirmative action exposing that person to personal harm when they know or should appreciate the person's condition.

🔒

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.

In rural Vermont, Nolan Pierce stopped at Evan Rourke’s house in Montpelier at Evan’s invitation to discuss buying maple equipment. During coffee, Nolan became pale, slumped in his chair, and twice said he could not see clearly. Evan nevertheless walked him to Nolan’s pickup, saw Nolan fumble the keys and fail to fasten his seat belt, then told him to "take it slow" and sent him off alone on an icy road.

If Nolan is later injured after losing consciousness while driving away, which is the strongest argument that Evan owed Nolan a duty recognized by the majority rule?

Explanation. The majority distinguished the ordinary no-duty-to-aid rule and held that when a person is present by invitation and becomes helpless, the host must at least refrain from affirmative conduct exposing that person to danger if the host knows or should appreciate the condition. There is no absolute duty to lodge the guest overnight, no automatic liability for all post-departure injuries, and no general duty imposed on all bystanders. (Derived from Depue v. Flatau (n.d.).)