Farwell v. Keaton

Michigan Court of Appeals · 1974 · Torts

215 N.W.2d 753 (1974)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsnonfeasanceduty to rescuevoluntary undertakingmedical assistanceknowledge of necessityabandonment of assumed dutydirected verdict

Facts

Farwell was beaten by a group of pursuers after he and Siegrist had been followed from a restaurant area back to a trailer lot. Siegrist later gave Farwell a plastic bag of ice, and the two then spent about two hours visiting four drive-in restaurants, during which Farwell did not complain of pain and expressed interest in retaliation. Farwell eventually lay down in the back seat and appeared to be asleep, and Siegrist left him in a car at his grandparents' home around midnight. Farwell was found the next morning and died of an epidural hematoma.

Issue

Whether Siegrist had a legal duty to obtain medical assistance for Farwell after the beating, such that his failure to do so could support negligence liability. Also, whether giving Farwell a bag of ice constituted a voluntary assumption of a duty whose abandonment could create liability.

Rule

In negligence, nonfeasance generally creates no liability because there is no general duty to aid another. A duty may arise if a person voluntarily undertakes to render aid, but liability depends on reasonable care within that undertaking; no duty to furnish medical attention arises from the parties' relationship where the need for treatment is not known and could not have become known through ordinary care. An actor who gratuitously begins aid may abandon it unless the aid has made the other person worse off, misled him into believing danger has been removed, or deprived him of other sources of help.

🔒

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 a late-night pickup basketball game in Columbus, Ohio, Evan Torres saw his acquaintance, Malik Jensen, get shoved to the pavement by strangers in the parking lot. Malik stood up, joked that he was "fine," and spent the next two hours eating with Evan at three diners before falling asleep in Evan’s car; the next morning Malik died from an internal head injury no layperson had recognized.

If Malik’s estate sues Evan for negligence based solely on Evan’s failure to obtain medical care, which is the strongest argument for Evan?

Explanation. The majority opinion treats failure to secure medical care as nonfeasance. The governing rule is that there is no general duty to aid an injured person, and no duty to obtain medical assistance arises where the defendant neither knew nor should have known that such assistance was necessary. Because Malik appeared fine, socialized for hours, and the need for urgent treatment was not apparent to a layperson, Evan has the strongest defense.