Baker v. Fenneman & Brown Properties, LLC
793 N.E.2d 1203 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for business purposes has an affirmative duty to take reasonable action to aid or protect a customer who becomes ill or injured on the premises, even if the business is not at fault for the initial illness or injury.
Facts:
- On August 26, 1999, Aaron Baker entered a Taco Bell in Newburgh, Indiana, to purchase a soft drink.
- While at the counter, Baker felt nauseous, suddenly fell backward, hit his head on the floor, and was knocked unconscious, at which point he began having convulsions.
- Moments after regaining consciousness and standing up, Baker fell a second time.
- This second fall caused Baker to be knocked unconscious again, lacerate his chin, lose his four front teeth, and crack a vertebra in his neck.
- After the second fall, Baker stumbled out of the store to a friend, who then contacted Baker's fiancé to transport him to the hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- Aaron Baker filed a complaint alleging negligence against Taco Bell in an Indiana trial court.
- Taco Bell filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no legal duty to assist Baker.
- The trial court granted Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment.
- Baker, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with Taco Bell as the appellee.
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 business owner have a legal duty to provide reasonable assistance to a customer who falls ill or is injured on the premises for reasons unrelated to any fault of the business?
Opinions:
Majority - May, Judge
Yes. A business that invites the public onto its premises for its own economic benefit enters into a special relationship with its customers that gives rise to an affirmative duty to provide reasonable assistance if a customer becomes ill or injured, regardless of the cause. The court adopted the position outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A, which imposes a duty on land possessors open to the public to give aid to invitees. The court distinguished prior state precedent, holding that the duty to assist an invitee does not require that the business's own instrumentality caused the injury. Public policy supports this rule, as businesses derive an economic benefit from customers and should assume this duty as a cost of doing business. The duty is one of 'reasonable care under the circumstances,' which does not require employees to be medical professionals but may be satisfied by summoning medical assistance. Because a material factual dispute exists as to whether Taco Bell's employee offered any assistance, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision formally aligns Indiana negligence law with the modern majority rule articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A. It clarifies that the duty of a business to aid an invitee is not contingent on the business being at fault for the underlying injury, but arises from the special relationship between the business and its customer. This precedent significantly impacts premises liability by imposing an affirmative duty on all businesses open to the public to take reasonable steps to assist patrons in peril. Future cases will likely focus on what constitutes 'reasonable' assistance under various circumstances, rather than on whether a duty exists at all.
