Ocotillo West Joint Venture v. Superior Court
844 P.2d 653, 125 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 19, 173 Ariz. 486 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Good Samaritan doctrine, a person who voluntarily undertakes to render services to another, such as driving an intoxicated individual home, assumes a duty to act with reasonable care and can be held liable as a nonparty at fault if their subsequent negligence places the individual in a worse position than they were in before the undertaking.
Facts:
- Joseph Zylka and William Easley played golf and consumed alcoholic beverages at the Ocotillo Golf Course.
- Observing that Zylka appeared intoxicated, two Ocotillo employees took possession of his car keys to prevent him from driving.
- Easley then stepped forward and offered to drive Zylka home.
- Relying on Easley's assurance, the employees gave Zylka's car keys to Easley.
- Once in the parking lot, Easley returned the keys to Zylka.
- Zylka left the golf course driving his own car and was involved in a fatal single-car accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Zylka's representatives (respondents) filed a wrongful death action against the operators of Ocotillo Golf Course (petitioners) in the trial court.
- The petitioners filed a notice of nonparty at fault, alleging that William Easley was partially responsible for Zylka's death.
- The respondents filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the petitioners' allegation.
- The trial judge treated the filing as a motion to strike the notice of nonparty at fault and granted it.
- The petitioners brought a special action to the intermediate appellate court, seeking review of the trial court's order to strike.
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 who voluntarily undertakes to drive an intoxicated person home, thereby causing a commercial establishment's employees to cease their own intervention efforts, assume a duty of care under the Good Samaritan doctrine such that they may be designated as a nonparty at fault if they subsequently return the car keys to the intoxicated person who is then fatally injured?
Opinions:
Majority - Voss, Judge
Yes. An individual who voluntarily undertakes to aid a helpless person assumes a duty to act with reasonable care. The court held that the Good Samaritan doctrine, as articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323 and 324, applies to these facts. A person is considered 'helpless' in the context of their specific situation; an intoxicated person about to drive a car is helpless. By offering to drive Zylka home, Easley undertook a duty to Zylka. This undertaking caused Ocotillo's employees to cease their own efforts to prevent Zylka from driving. When Easley subsequently returned the keys to Zylka, he discontinued his aid and left Zylka in a worse position than when the employees had possession of the keys. Therefore, a reasonable jury could conclude that Easley's actions contributed to Zylka's death, making it proper to name him as a nonparty at fault.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the Good Samaritan doctrine within Arizona's comparative fault system, affirming that a duty of care can be created by a purely voluntary undertaking. It establishes that an individual's gratuitous promise to help can lead to liability if it induces reliance from others (like the bar employees) and is then performed negligently. The ruling solidifies the ability of a defendant in a tort action to apportion fault to any party whose negligence contributed to the harm, even if that party had no initial duty to act, thereby ensuring that liability is distributed according to each party's respective fault.
