Sall Ex Rel. Sall v. T'S, Inc.
2006 Kan. LEXIS 475, 136 P.3d 471, 281 Kan. 1355 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business that voluntarily undertakes to render a service for the protection of its patrons, such as a weather warning system, assumes a duty to exercise reasonable care in performing that undertaking.
Facts:
- On June 14, 2001, after a stormy morning, Smiley's Golf Course (SGC) reopened to the public around 4 p.m. when the skies cleared.
- Matthew Patrick Sail called SGC to confirm it was open and told his mother, "Mom, don’t worry; they wouldn’t be open if it wasn’t safe."
- Sail and his friend, Christopher Gannan, began golfing around 4:45 p.m.
- While on the second hole, it began to rain and Gannan saw lightning in the distance.
- Sail and Gannan discussed SGC's policy of sounding an air horn to warn golfers of dangerous weather, a system Gannan had experienced on a prior occasion, and relied on it for their safety.
- At approximately 4:57 p.m., SGC's manager, Jeff Tull, saw approaching storms on radar and visually, and then sounded the warning air horn.
- Moments after hearing the horn and as they were preparing to leave the green, Sail was struck by lightning, resulting in severe and permanent injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The Sails (plaintiffs) filed a negligence action against T's, Inc., d/b/a Smiley's Golf Course (defendant), in district court.
- SGC moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to protect patrons from lightning.
- The district court granted summary judgment for SGC, finding as a matter of law that no such duty existed.
- The Sails (appellants) appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals.
- In a split decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of SGC (appellee).
- The Sails (petitioners) sought and were granted a petition for review by the Supreme Court of Kansas.
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 golf course that voluntarily undertakes to monitor weather and warn patrons of danger assume a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in performing that undertaking under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, J.
Yes. A business that voluntarily undertakes to render services it should recognize as necessary for the protection of others is subject to liability for physical harm resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care in performing the undertaking. SGC established a policy to monitor weather and warn golfers with an air horn, which constitutes a voluntary undertaking to render a service for the protection of its patrons under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323. The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the Sails, demonstrates that Patrick Sail and his friend relied on this undertaking. They specifically discussed the warning system and Patrick expressed confidence in the course's judgment by telling his mother it must be safe if it was open. Because SGC assumed this duty, whether it breached that duty by failing to act with reasonable care (e.g., by improperly monitoring weather or by providing an untimely warning) is a question of fact for a jury. Therefore, the lower courts erred in granting summary judgment, as there are disputed material facts regarding SGC's negligence in carrying out its assumed duty.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'voluntary undertaking' or 'assumed duty' doctrine from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 to business operators for natural weather events. It establishes that a business can create a legal duty for itself by implementing safety procedures, even where no such duty would otherwise exist. The ruling implies that a poorly executed safety plan may create more liability for a business than having no plan at all, as patrons may reasonably rely on the promised protection. This precedent will influence how businesses manage and communicate their safety protocols and will likely make it more difficult for such businesses to obtain summary judgment when there are questions of fact about the reasonableness of their actions.
