Menu v. Minor

Colorado Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutySpecial RelationshipCommon Carriernegligencedutyspecial relation rule

Facts

Minor lost control of a vehicle on an interstate highway, collided with a median wall, and left the car in a position blocking one lane of traffic. At some later time, plaintiff Peggy Menu drove into the abandoned, inoperable vehicle. Between those events, a Yellow Cab driver stopped at the scene, picked up Minor, and drove him away. Plaintiffs alleged Yellow Cab, as a common carrier, had a duty to notify authorities, remove the vehicle, or remain to warn oncoming motorists.

Issue

Whether Yellow Cab, by virtue of its status as a common carrier and by transporting Minor from the accident scene, owed plaintiffs a legal duty to notify authorities, remove the hazard, or warn oncoming motorists about the blocked lane.

Rule

Whether a defendant owes a duty is a question of law. Under the special relation rule of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315, there is no duty to prevent a third person from harming another unless a special relationship exists between the actor and the wrongdoer or the actor and the victim; such a relationship requires that the actor affirmatively induce reliance or create a peril or change the nature of an existing risk.

🔒

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.

On Interstate 70 near Denver, Nora Kim lost control of her sedan, which spun out and came to rest partly blocking the right lane. A driver for Summit Arrow Taxi stopped, picked up Nora, and drove her to Aurora without calling anyone. Twenty minutes later, Eli Navarro struck the abandoned car and was injured.

If Eli sues Summit Arrow Taxi for negligence, alleging the taxi company had a duty to call police, stay behind to warn traffic, or arrange removal of the car because it had transported Nora from the scene, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that duty is a question of law and that, under the special relation rule, there is no duty to protect others from harm caused by a third person absent a special relationship. Such a relationship requires affirmative conduct inducing reliance or creating or changing the risk. Here, the taxi company did not create the hazard, alter it, or induce Eli's reliance; mere proximity and failure to call police or warn others are not enough. (Derived from Menu v. Minor (n.d.).)