Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.

Supreme Court of California · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyForeseeabilityIntervening Third-Party ConductMisfeasance vs. Nonfeasancedutyforeseeability

Facts

KHJ, a Los Angeles radio station with a large teenage audience, ran a promotion in which listeners could win cash by being the first to find disc jockey 'The Real Don Steele' as he moved from place to place and the station broadcast his whereabouts and destinations live. Two young listeners, after missing one prize location, independently decided to follow Steele's car to reach the next stop first, jockeying for position at speeds up to 80 miles per hour. As Steele exited the freeway, either Baime or Sentner forced decedent's car onto the divider, causing it to overturn and killing him. Sentner then continued to pursue Steele and collected a cash prize.

Issue

Did the radio station owe a duty of due care to the decedent when it conducted and broadcast a contest that encouraged listeners to race to find a moving disc jockey, and was the fatal harm sufficiently foreseeable despite being directly inflicted by third parties?

Rule

All persons are required to use ordinary care to prevent others from being injured as a result of their conduct. When a defendant's affirmative conduct creates an unreasonable risk of harm, duty is governed by ordinary care principles, and foreseeable negligent reactions by third parties do not relieve the defendant of liability; Restatement section 315's no-duty-to-control rule applies to nonfeasance, not to misfeasance creating the 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.

In Phoenix, station Sunburst FM launched a live promotion in which a host drove a brightly painted SUV around the city while broadcasting his next destination every few minutes. The first listener to reach him and repeat a code phrase would win cash, and during the promotion two listeners sped after the SUV; one clipped a minivan driven by Elena Ruiz, seriously injuring her.

If Elena sues Sunburst FM for negligence, what is the strongest basis for finding that the station owed her a duty?

Explanation. The majority held that when a defendant's own affirmative conduct creates an unreasonable risk of harm, duty is governed by ordinary care principles. A live contest designed to spur listeners to reach a moving target first can foreseeably produce dangerous pursuit driving, and the station may owe a duty to innocent motorists injured by that hazard. A special relationship is unnecessary because this is misfeasance, not mere failure to control others. (Derived from Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (n.d.).)