(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Since the Greenes had assumed an affirmative duty to protect, control and supervise him on the night and early morning of December 19, 20, 2006. [t]he finding of a duty to provide assistance depends upon a showing of special factors such as would give rise to an expectation that assistance would be provided and a showing that due to these factors the victim detrimentally relied upon that expectation or was otherwise dependent upon the defendant for assistance. (cf.Andrews v. Wells supra, 204 Cal.App.3d at 540) However, the Greenes breached their duty by allowing Paul to ride home with a drunk driver.
In Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California 17 C.3d 425,435 (1976) our California Supreme Court held that “as a general rule, one person owed no duty to control the conduct of another, nor to warn those endangered by such conduct,” the courts have carved out an exception to this rule in cases in which the defendant stands in some special relationship to either the person whose conduct needs to be controlled or in a relationship to the foreseeable victim of that conduct. (Citations omitted) If the defendant enters upon an affirmative course of conduct affecting the interests of another, he is regarded as assuming a duty to act, and will thereafter be liable for negligent acts or omissions… (Brockett v. Kitchen Boyd Motor Co. 264 C.A.2d 69,72 (1968) (citing Valdez v. Taylor Automobile Co. 129 Cal.App.2d, 810,817 (1954).)
The case of Brockett v. Kitchen Boyd Motor Co. was an action for personal injuries by occupants of an automobile against the employer of a minor who became intoxicated at a Christmas party, drove his vehicle, which collided with the plaintiff’s causing them injuries. The lower court sustained defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend and was reversed by our Court of Appeal. The Court held that It is our view that the alleged relationship between the minor Huff and Kitchen Boyd Motor Company was such that the defendant had assumed the responsibility for the well-being and proper conduct of the minor in the circumstances here for not only the minor’s protection, but also for the protection of the general public through the exercise of ordinary care. (Brockett v. Kitchen Boyd Motor Co. supra. 264 C.A.2d, at 72.)
Clearly, based on the facts of this case, the Greenes had assumed an affirmative duty to protect, control and supervise Paul, a youth of only 14 years, on the night and early morning of December 19, 20, 2006. A greater degree of care is generally owed to children because of their lack of capacity to appreciate risks and to avoid danger. McDaniel v. Sunset Manor Co., 220 Cal.App.3d 1,7 (1990) (Citing Casas v. Laulhardt Buick, Inc., 258 Cal.App.2d 692,697 (1968). Our Court of Appeal continued that there is a duty to protect the young and heedless from themselves and guard them against perils that reasonably could have been foreseen. (Citing Copfer v. Golden, 135 Cal.App.2d 623, 629 (1955)) (See Part 7 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.