Williams v. Cingular Wireless

Indiana Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutynegligenceduty12(B)(6)relationshipforeseeability

Facts

Williams was injured in an automobile accident with Meagher on March 27, 2002. At the time of the collision, Meagher was allegedly using a cellular phone furnished by Cingular. Williams's complaint alleged that Cingular was negligent in furnishing Meagher a cellular phone when it knew or should have known it would be used while operating a motor vehicle. The phone itself did not malfunction, and Williams alleged no direct contractual or other relationship with Cingular.

Issue

Did Cingular owe Williams a duty of care based solely on its furnishing a cellular phone to Meagher, who allegedly was using the phone while driving when she collided with Williams? The court also considered whether Williams's appeal was frivolous so as to justify appellate fees and costs.

Rule

When the existence of a duty is not previously established, Indiana courts determine whether to impose a common-law duty by balancing three factors: (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) public policy concerns. In reviewing a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal, the court tests only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, views the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and affirms dismissal if the alleged facts cannot support relief under any set of circumstances.

🔒

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 Indianapolis, Nora Bennett was struck by a car after the driver glanced down at a handheld GPS unit sold by Prairie Signal Devices, a retail electronics company. Nora sued Prairie Signal, alleging it was negligent in selling GPS units because it knew customers would sometimes look at them while driving.

Assuming the complaint alleges no product defect, no contractual relationship between Nora and Prairie Signal, and no involvement by Prairie Signal employees or property, should the negligence claim against Prairie Signal survive a motion to dismiss on the duty issue?

Explanation. When duty is not otherwise established, the court balances relationship, foreseeability, and public policy. A complaint alleging only that a seller furnished a nondefective product later used by someone who injured a third party shows a remote relationship, not one creating a duty. The majority specifically reasoned that noncustomer status, lack of contract, lack of employee or property involvement, and absence of malfunction point away from duty. (Derived from Williams v. Cingular Wireless (n.d.).)