Harper v. Herman

Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1993 · Torts

Tortsdutyaffirmative dutyspecial relationshipsocial hostboat ownerwarningshallow water

Facts

Herman, an experienced boat owner, took several guests, including 20-year-old Harper, on his private boat on Lake Minnetonka. After boating, the group stopped near Big Island to swim, and Herman anchored in water shallow enough for guests to use the boat ladder while still deep enough to swim; Herman knew the water in that area remained shallow for a distance from shore. While Herman was lowering the ladder, Harper asked if he was going in, then without warning stepped onto the side of the boat and dove into about two or three feet of water. Harper struck the bottom, severed his spinal cord, and sued Herman for failing to warn him that the water was too shallow for diving.

Issue

Does a private boat owner acting as a social host owe an affirmative duty to warn a guest that the surrounding water is too shallow for diving? More specifically, does the host's greater knowledge of the shallow water create such a duty absent a special relationship?

Rule

An affirmative duty to act for another's aid or protection arises only when a special relationship exists between the parties. A special relationship is generally limited to situations such as common carriers, innkeepers, possessors of land open to the public, and custodians of persons deprived of normal opportunities for self-protection; superior knowledge of a dangerous condition, without such a duty to protect, is insufficient to establish negligence liability.

🔒

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.

Evan Morse invited Nina Patel, a 27-year-old coworker, onto his private fishing boat for a free afternoon on Lake Tahoe. Evan knew the cove where he stopped was only three feet deep for several yards, but Nina, without asking about depth, dove from the side of the boat and was badly injured.

If Nina sues Evan for failing to warn her that the water was too shallow for diving, which is the strongest argument for Evan under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that an affirmative duty to aid or protect another arises only when a special relationship exists. A private social host with an adult guest on a boat does not, without more, stand in such a relationship, and superior knowledge of shallow water alone does not create a duty. Thus Evan's best defense is the absence of a special relationship.