Diane DOWNS Ex Rel. Ryan Cody DOWNS v. Mark BUSH Et Al.
2008 Tenn. LEXIS 588, 263 S.W.3d 812 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A duty of care may arise when individuals place another in a foreseeably dangerous position or take charge of a helpless person, but generally, no affirmative duty to aid or protect exists solely due to friendship, designated driver status, or vehicle ownership without a recognized special relationship.
Facts:
- On Saturday, February 15, 2003, eighteen-year-old Ryan Cody Downs and five other young men (Ryan Britt, Mark Bush, Jerry Dane Eller, Kevin Deans, and Scott Hurdle) gathered at Downs’ apartment for socializing, including consuming alcohol.
- Downs, Britt, Bush, and Deans were all under the legal drinking age of twenty-one; all consumed alcohol except Eller, who agreed to be the designated driver for a trip to a party in Hurdle’s four-door pick-up truck.
- After finding no party at their destination, Downs became belligerent, destructive, and obnoxious from continued drinking, spilling a drink, knocking over property, and kicking neighboring apartment doors.
- On the return trip on Interstate 65, Downs became nauseous and started to dry-heave, prompting Eller to stop the truck on the side of the highway where Downs exited and vomited.
- After vomiting, Downs continued the trip alone and unrestrained in the bed of the truck; there is a dispute among the defendants about whether they placed him there or he entered voluntarily.
- Shortly after resuming the trip, Downs started beating on the truck’s rear window, and then at some point, exited the truck while it was still moving or stopped briefly, without the other group members knowing when or why.
- Downs was later observed on Interstate 65 by Melissa Barrell, crouched in a “runner’s stance,” before he ran into a lane of traffic and was struck by two vehicles, subsequently dying from his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Diane Downs, Ryan Cody Downs' mother, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Mark Bush, Ryan Britt, Jerry Dane Eller, and Scott Hurdle in a state trial court, alleging intentional or negligent conduct and outrageous conduct.
- Each defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing lack of duty, no breach, and an independent, intervening cause for Mr. Downs' death.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to each defendant on all claims without stating specific legal grounds.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that only the driver (Eller) and owner (Hurdle) owed a duty of care, but that there was no breach, and alternatively, that Mr. Downs' act was an independent, intervening cause.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, raising issues related to the nature of the legal duty owed by the defendants.
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 duty of care arise when social companions place an intoxicated individual in a foreseeably dangerous position or take charge of a helpless intoxicated individual, or do special relationships like best friend, designated driver, or vehicle owner create an affirmative duty to aid or protect an intoxicated companion?
Opinions:
Majority - William M. Barker, C.J.
No, a duty of care does not arise solely from friendship, designated driver status, or vehicle ownership; however, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants placed Mr. Downs in a foreseeably dangerous position (the truck bed) or took charge of him while he was helpless, which would give rise to a duty of care. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' summary judgment and remanded the case. The court explained that while individuals have a general duty to refrain from acting in a way that creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the law generally does not impose an affirmative duty to aid or protect others unless specific exceptions apply, such as a special relationship or taking charge of a helpless individual (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324). The court found that the dangers of riding unrestrained in the bed of a pick-up truck on an interstate, especially for an intoxicated person, are foreseeable and obvious. Therefore, a jury must determine whether the defendants placed Mr. Downs in the truck bed or assisted him, in which case they would owe him a duty of reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm. Similarly, the court concluded that whether Mr. Downs was "helpless" due to intoxication and whether the defendants "took charge of" him are genuine issues of material fact for the jury. However, the court explicitly rejected the plaintiff’s arguments for special relationships giving rise to an affirmative duty based on: 1) best friendship and roommate status (Mr. Britt), as friendship alone does not create such a duty and it's not a recognized special relationship; 2) designated driver status (Mr. Eller), as imposing a broad affirmative duty on designated drivers to control intoxicated passengers would discourage the beneficial practice; and 3) vehicle ownership (Mr. Hurdle), as ownership alone does not create an affirmative duty to aid or protect passengers beyond potential vicarious liability for the driver's negligence.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Janice M. Holder, J.
Yes, the defendants owed a duty of care to the decedent as a matter of law. Justice Holder agreed with remanding the case for further proceedings but dissented from the majority's conclusion that the existence of a duty of care was a question of fact for the jury. She asserted that the existence of a duty is always a question of law for the court. In her view, a duty of reasonable care arises whenever a defendant's conduct poses a risk of harm to persons or property. She argued that the defendants engaged in risky behavior by drinking excessively and driving on the interstate with an unrestrained, intoxicated passenger in the truck bed, which undeniably created a risk of harm. Therefore, she concluded that the defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care as a matter of law. She believed that whether the defendants placed the decedent in the truck or he entered voluntarily was relevant only to whether they breached their duty and caused his death, not to the initial establishment of a duty.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the duty of care owed by social companions to an intoxicated individual in Tennessee. By framing the questions of whether defendants actively placed Downs in danger or took charge of a helpless Downs as factual issues for a jury, the court makes it more challenging for defendants to win such cases on summary judgment. The ruling on designated drivers establishes a clear public policy favoring the encouragement of designated driving by limiting their duty to safe operation of the vehicle, rather than imposing a broad affirmative duty to control intoxicated passengers. This case helps define the boundaries of social liability, differentiating between active creation of risk and passive non-intervention, while also reinforcing the principle that duties to aid arise from specific circumstances rather than general social ties like friendship.
