Cuppy v. Bunch
88 S.D. 22, 1974 S.D. LEXIS 90, 214 N.W.2d 786 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual has no legal duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent them from causing physical harm to another, unless a special relationship exists between the individual and either the third person or the other.
Facts:
- Defendants Bunch and White, who were friends and neighbors, met at a bar and later went fishing.
- Throughout the afternoon, both men drank from a gallon thermos containing vodka and lemonade prepared by White.
- Bunch was 'hung over' and became sleepy, so White drove Bunch's vehicle back to town while Bunch slept.
- Upon arrival, White had difficulty waking Bunch, who admitted he did not feel well but insisted on driving his own vehicle home.
- White then stated to Bunch, 'follow me' or 'just stay behind me,' and the two men left in their separate vehicles with White in the lead.
- Another driver observed Bunch's vehicle swerving erratically between the shoulder and the opposite lane of traffic.
- Shortly thereafter, Bunch drove his vehicle across the center line and collided head-on with the plaintiffs' vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed six damage claims against defendants Brian D. Bunch and Marlin G. White arising from a two-car collision.
- The claims were consolidated for a single trial in the court of first instance.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against both defendants.
- Defendant Bunch did not appeal the judgment against him.
- Defendant White (appellant) appealed the judgment against him to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
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 an individual owe a legal duty of care to third parties for the actions of a visibly intoxicated adult driver, when the individual does not have a special relationship with or control over the driver, but merely suggests the driver follow him in a separate vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Doyle, Justice
No. An individual does not owe a legal duty of care to third parties for the actions of an intoxicated driver where no special relationship or control exists. For actionable negligence to exist, there must first be a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315, the court holds that there is no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent harm to another unless a special relationship exists. The court found no special relationship between White and Bunch (the driver) or between White and the plaintiffs (the victims). The facts did not indicate that White exercised or was capable of exercising any control over Bunch, and his statement 'follow me' did not constitute an undertaking to render assistance that would create such a duty. Therefore, White owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs, and the claim against him fails as a matter of law.
Concurring - Biegelmeier, Chief Justice
Concurred in the result without a separate written opinion.
Dissenting - Winans, Justice
Dissented without a separate written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law principle that there is no general duty to act affirmatively to protect others from harm, particularly from the conduct of a third party. By strictly applying the 'special relationship' requirement from the Restatement, the court sets a high bar for imposing liability for nonfeasance. The ruling clarifies that mere knowledge of another's incapacitation and verbal suggestions like 'follow me' are insufficient to create a legal duty of control or assistance. This case serves as a key precedent for limiting the expansion of tort liability in situations involving social acquaintances and the failure to prevent negligent acts.
