Amy Hiltner v. Owners Insurance Company
869 F.3d 699, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16471, 2017 WL 3707444 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person's status as a sober designated driver does not create a heightened duty of care beyond the ordinary standard of reasonable care required of all vehicle operators.
Facts:
- Amy Hiltner attended a social gathering where she and others became intoxicated.
- Samantha Denault, who was sober, agreed to serve as the designated driver for Hiltner and a group of friends.
- Upon reaching Denault's vehicle, Hiltner and another passenger, Xaviera Lone Wolf, climbed onto the trunk of the car.
- Denault urged Hiltner and Lone Wolf to get inside the vehicle, but they twice refused, stating they would be 'fine.'
- Denault proceeded to drive slowly and cautiously, keeping her speed at fifteen miles per hour and frequently checking on the passengers on the trunk.
- While driving, another passenger, Josh Jeffries, who was in the front seat, pushed Denault’s right leg down onto the accelerator.
- The vehicle suddenly sped up, causing Hiltner and Lone Wolf to fall from the trunk, resulting in injuries to Hiltner.
Procedural Posture:
- After being injured, Amy Hiltner received a policy-limit payment of $25,000 from the driver's (Denault's) insurer.
- Hiltner then sued her father's insurer, Owners Insurance Company, in North Dakota state court to recover underinsured motorist benefits.
- Owners Insurance Company removed the case from state court to the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Denault 55% at fault, Jeffries 25% at fault, and Hiltner 20% at fault, and awarded damages to Hiltner.
- Owners Insurance Company (defendant) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a designated driver owe a heightened duty of care to their intoxicated passengers beyond the ordinary standard of care to operate a vehicle in a careful and prudent manner?
Opinions:
Majority - Colloton, Circuit Judge.
No, a designated driver does not owe a heightened duty of care to intoxicated passengers beyond the standard duty to operate a vehicle in a careful and prudent manner. The district court committed legal error by apportioning the majority of fault to Samantha Denault based on her status as the sober designated driver rather than on the manner in which she operated the vehicle. The court's reliance on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324, which applies to one who takes charge of a helpless person, was misplaced because there were no factual findings that Denault 'took charge' of Hiltner or that Hiltner was legally 'helpless.' In fact, Hiltner's refusal of Denault's instructions suggests the opposite. Imposing a heightened duty on designated drivers would create a chilling effect on a valuable public service.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the public policy of encouraging the use of designated drivers by refusing to saddle them with a heightened legal duty. The court clarifies that liability must stem from a breach of the standard duty of care in operating a vehicle, not from the driver's social role as the sober party. This prevents designated drivers from becoming de facto insurers for the irresponsible actions of their intoxicated passengers. The ruling establishes that for a driver to be found to have 'taken charge' of a 'helpless' passenger under the Restatement, there must be specific factual findings of control and incapacitation, which are not automatically met by the designated driver-intoxicated passenger relationship.
