Domagala v. Rolland
2011 WL 5061523, 2011 Minn. LEXIS 668, 805 N.W.2d 14 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a person's affirmative conduct creates a foreseeable risk of physical harm to others, that person has a general duty to exercise reasonable care, which may include warning others of the danger, even in the absence of a special relationship that would create a specific legal duty to warn.
Facts:
- Bradley Domagala engaged his relative, Eric Rolland, to perform landscaping services on Domagala's property using a skid loader.
- The skid loader had interchangeable attachments held by two pins, which were released by levers.
- When a lever became jammed with debris, Rolland's practice was to release the functional lever and then shake the attachment by "fluttering the hydraulics" while it was raised and hanging by only one pin.
- Rolland admitted that shaking the attachment while it was connected by a single pin was a "very" dangerous procedure.
- While Rolland was shaking the bucket attachment, which was hanging by one pin, Domagala approached to assist without being warned of the danger.
- Domagala saw a rock jammed in the stuck lever and approached the machine to help.
- After signaling Rolland, Domagala removed the rock and pulled the previously-jammed lever.
- The bucket, now unsecured, fell on Domagala's foot, resulting in the amputation of three of his toes.
Procedural Posture:
- Bradley Domagala sued Eric Rolland in district court (trial court) for negligence.
- The district court denied Rolland's motion for summary judgment but ruled that Rolland had no specific duty to warn or protect Domagala.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury, over Domagala's objection, that Rolland had 'no duty to warn' and 'no duty to protect' Domagala.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Rolland was not negligent.
- The district court denied Domagala's motion for a new trial.
- Domagala (as appellant) appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial.
- Rolland (as appellant) petitioned the Supreme Court of Minnesota for review, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In the absence of a special relationship, can a defendant's failure to warn another of a foreseeable danger created by the defendant's own conduct constitute a breach of the general duty of reasonable care?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, G. Barry, Justice.
Yes. A defendant's failure to warn another of a foreseeable danger created by the defendant's own conduct can constitute a breach of the general duty of reasonable care, even without a special relationship. The court distinguished between a specific duty to warn, which arises only from a special relationship and applies when the defendant has not created the harm (nonfeasance), and the general duty of reasonable care, which arises when a defendant's own conduct creates a foreseeable risk of injury (misfeasance). In the latter case, exercising reasonable care may require giving a warning. Here, Rolland's affirmative act of shaking the bucket while it was precariously suspended by a single pin created a foreseeable, dangerous situation. This act gave rise to a general duty of reasonable care toward Domagala. A jury should have been permitted to consider whether a reasonably prudent person in Rolland's position would have warned Domagala of the danger. The trial court's instruction that there was 'no duty to warn' was an erroneous statement of law because it conflated the two distinct legal concepts and improperly prevented the jury from considering failure to warn as a potential breach of the general duty of reasonable care.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a critical distinction between the narrow, specific 'duty to warn' that arises from a special relationship and the broader concept of giving a warning as a component of the general duty of reasonable care. It firmly establishes that when one's own affirmative conduct (misfeasance) creates a foreseeable danger, the duty of reasonable care attaches, and a failure to warn can be a breach of that duty. This limits the applicability of precedents that deny a duty to warn in cases of nonfeasance (failing to protect from a danger one did not create). The case provides a clear framework for analyzing negligence claims where a defendant creates a hazard but has no special relationship with the injured plaintiff.
