Harper v. Herman

Supreme Court of Minnesota
499 N.W.2d 472 (1993)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An affirmative duty to act for the protection of another arises only when a special relationship exists between the parties; superior knowledge of a dangerous condition, by itself, is insufficient to create such a duty.

Facts:

Theodor Herman, a 64-year-old experienced boat owner, hosted a social outing on his 26-foot boat on Lake Minnetonka.
Jeffrey Harper, a 20-year-old guest whom Herman had not met before the outing, joined the group.
Herman navigated the boat to Big Island, a popular swimming area, and anchored it 100 to 200 yards from shore in water he knew was shallow.
The lake bottom was not visible from the boat's deck.
Harper had some experience swimming in lakes but no formal training in diving.
While Herman was at the stern lowering a ladder for swimmers, Harper asked if he was 'going in.'
After Herman replied 'yes,' Harper, without any warning, dove from the side of the boat into approximately two to three feet of water.
The dive resulted in Harper striking the lake bottom, severing his spinal cord and causing him to become a C6 quadriplegic.

Procedural Posture:

Jeffrey Harper filed a negligence lawsuit against Theodor Herman in a state trial court.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Herman, ruling that he owed no duty to warn Harper.
Harper, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
The court of appeals reversed the trial court, holding that Herman did have a duty to warn Harper of the shallow water.
Herman, as the appellant, appealed the court of appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.

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 boat owner, acting as a social host, have an affirmative duty to warn an adult guest of the open and obvious danger of diving into shallow water?

Opinions:

Majority - Page, Justice

No. A boat owner and social host does not have an affirmative duty to warn an adult guest about the obvious danger of diving into shallow water because such a relationship does not constitute a 'special relationship' that gives rise to a duty to protect. The court reasoned that an affirmative duty to act arises only when a special relationship exists, such as those between common carriers and passengers, or innkeepers and guests, where one party has custody over another who is deprived of the normal ability to self-protect. Here, no such relationship existed; Harper was not vulnerable or unable to protect himself, and Herman held no special power over his welfare, was not deriving a financial benefit, and was not expected by Harper to provide protection. While Herman had superior knowledge of the water's depth, the court held that knowledge of a danger, on its own, does not create a duty to warn. The danger of diving into water of an unknown depth is an open and obvious risk that a 20-year-old adult should be expected to appreciate.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the traditional common law principle that there is no general duty to protect or rescue others from harm in the absence of a special relationship. The court narrowly construes the 'special relationship' exception, declining to extend it to the social host-guest context for open and obvious dangers. This holding reinforces the doctrine of individual responsibility, placing the onus on adults to recognize and avoid common recreational hazards. It significantly limits the potential liability for social hosts, preventing the establishment of a broad precedent that could hold them responsible for their guests' improvident actions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Harper v. Herman (1993)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature