Widlowski v. Durkee Foods

Supreme Court of Illinois · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyRespondeat Superiordutyforeseeabilitylikelihood of injuryburden of guarding against harm

Facts

Larry Wells, a Durkee Foods employee, entered an industrial tank to clean it without protective gear and without purging nitrogen gas from the tank. He was overcome by the gas, became restless, incoherent, and delirious, and was transported to St. Joseph's Medical Center. Plaintiff, a nurse at the medical center, attended Wells, and while delirious he bit off a portion of her right middle finger. Plaintiff alleged Durkee Foods was directly negligent in allowing Wells to enter the tank unprotected and vicariously liable for Wells' negligence.

Issue

Did Durkee Foods owe the plaintiff nurse a duty of ordinary care for injuries inflicted by its employee after he became delirious from nitrogen exposure at work and later bit her during medical treatment? If not, could Durkee Foods nevertheless be liable under respondeat superior for Wells' conduct?

Rule

Whether a duty exists is a question of law. In determining duty, a court considers not only foreseeability of harm, but also the likelihood of injury, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant, and the public policy and social requirements of the time and community. There is no duty to guard against harms that are merely tragically bizarre, freakish, or fantastic, and respondeat superior does not apply where the employee owed no duty to the plaintiff.

🔒

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 Toledo, Ohio, Mason Pike, an employee of Lakefront Alloy Works, ignored required ventilation while cleaning a solvent vat and became disoriented. Several hours later, at a clinic across town, he shoved Dana Ruiz, a receptionist, while hallucinating, causing her to fall and break her wrist.

Dana sues Lakefront Alloy Works for negligence, alleging the company should not have let Mason enter the vat without proper precautions. Which is the best argument for the company on duty?

Explanation. Whether a duty exists is a question of law. The majority held courts must consider not just foreseeability, but also likelihood of injury, burden of guarding against it, consequences of imposing that burden, and public policy. Where the plaintiff is removed in time and place and the injury is a freakish or tragically bizarre consequence with minimal likelihood, no duty is imposed. Scope of employment is relevant to respondeat superior, not to whether the employer directly owed Dana a duty. (Derived from Widlowski v. Durkee Foods (n.d.).)