Filter v. McCabe
733 A.2d 1274, 1999 Pa. Super. 143, 1999 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1807 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person, including a homeowner, who voluntarily undertakes to render aid to a helpless individual has a duty to exercise reasonable care in doing so and may be held liable for negligence if their actions increase the risk of harm or leave the individual in a worse position.
Facts:
- Appellee hosted a party at his home, which his neighbor, Appellant Edward F. Filter, attended.
- Both Appellee and Appellant had been drinking alcohol during the evening.
- After the party ended, Appellant fell in Appellee's basement, struck his head on the concrete floor, and was rendered unconscious.
- Appellee revived Appellant and placed him on a couch for the night without seeking medical assistance.
- The following morning, Appellant awoke and proceeded home without informing Appellee he was leaving.
- Appellee called Appellant's wife, Lorraine Filter, to inquire if he had arrived home safely, but did not mention the fall.
- An hour later, Appellee called Appellant's wife again and informed her that Appellant had fallen the previous night.
- Upon checking on him, Appellant's wife found him unresponsive and contacted emergency personnel, after which he underwent emergency surgery for a subdural hematoma and suffered permanent brain damage.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants (Edward F. Filter and Lorraine S. Filter) filed a complaint alleging negligence against Appellee (the homeowner) in the trial court.
- The trial court sustained Appellee's preliminary objections to the original and a subsequent complaint, but granted Appellants leave to amend.
- Appellants filed a third amended complaint.
- The trial court granted Appellee's preliminary objections in the form of a demurrer to the third amended complaint, dismissing the case.
- Appellants filed a timely appeal of the dismissal to this intermediate appellate court.
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 the 'Good Samaritan' doctrine, as articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323 and 324, apply to a homeowner who voluntarily undertakes to care for a guest who was injured and rendered unconscious on their property?
Opinions:
Majority - Stevens, J.
Yes, the 'Good Samaritan' doctrine applies to a homeowner who voluntarily undertakes to care for an injured guest. The plain language of the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323 and 324 does not exclude homeowners or other laypersons from liability. Section 323 applies to anyone who 'undertakes... to render services to another,' and Section 324 applies to anyone who 'takes charge of another who is helpless.' The comments to these sections contemplate situations where laypersons provide gratuitous aid. By reviving Appellant, placing him on a couch, and monitoring him, Appellee undertook a duty to act with reasonable care. Whether Appellee's subsequent actions—failing to seek medical help and delaying notification to Appellant's wife about the fall—were reasonable and whether they worsened Appellant's condition are questions of fact for a jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'Good Samaritan' doctrine in Pennsylvania is not limited to professionals or specific commercial entities but extends to private individuals, including social hosts. It establishes that the act of voluntarily rendering aid creates a legal duty of reasonable care, even where no such duty existed before. This holding potentially broadens the scope of liability for social hosts who intervene in medical situations, shifting the determination of negligence from a question of law for the judge to a question of fact for the jury in cases where a host's assistance may have been inadequate or worsened an injury.
