Yes, the radio station is responsible. The court decided that it was completely predictable that a contest like this would make young listeners drive dangerously. The station encouraged a high-speed chase on public roads just to get more listeners and make more money. It's not a good enough excuse to say the teenagers were the ones who crashed the car, because the radio station's contest is what caused them to drive so recklessly. The station actively created a dangerous situation, and because of that, it had a duty to make sure no one got hurt.

Yes, the radio station was responsible for the death because they should have known their contest could lead to dangerous driving and accidents, especially with so many young listeners. Just because no one had gotten hurt before doesn't mean it wasn't a possibility. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say things that put people in physical danger. The risks of the contest were too high compared to any fun or money it might have brought the station. The court also thought about things like right and wrong, fairness, and who should take the blame when deciding the station had a duty to be careful. Even though the teenagers were driving badly, it was still something the station should have expected could happen because of the contest. Having a fun contest or making money isn't a good enough reason to put people's lives in danger.

—owes a duty to another must be decided on a case-by-case basis,[fn. omitted] every case is governed by the rule of general application that all persons are required to use ordinary care to prevent others from being injured as the result of their conduct.[Citation.] However, foreseeability of the risk is a primary consideration in establishing the element of duty....[¶] While duty …

Any number of considerations may justify the imposition of duty in particular circumstances, including the guidance of history, our continually refined concepts of morals and justice, the convenience of the rule, and social judgment as to where the loss should fall

—a radio station with "an extensive teenage audience" held a contest for listeners to locate a radio disc jockey who was driving around Los Angeles.

In Weirum, the defendant, a "rock radio station with an extensive teenage audience conducted a contest which rewarded the first contestant to locate a peripatetic disc jockey. Two minors driving in separate automobiles attempted to follow the disc jockey's automobile to its next stop. In the course of their pursuit, one of the minors negligently forced a car off the highway …

The First Amendment does not sanction the infliction of physical injury merely because achieved by word, rather than act

"Defendant, relying upon the rule stated in section 315 of the Restatement Second of Torts, urges that it owed no duty of care to decedent. The section provides that, absent a special relationship, an actor is under no duty to control the conduct of third parties....[T] his rule has no application if the plaintiff's complaint... is grounded upon an affirmative act of defendant which …

However, " `[t] he mere fact that a particular kind of an accident has not happened before does not... show that such accident is one which might not reasonably have been anticipated.'[Citation.] Thus, the fortuitous absence of prior injury does not justify relieving defendant from responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its acts

—the California Supreme Court held that a radio station could be liable for negligence after it broadcast a radio contest which encouraged listeners to search for and find a popular radio disc jockey who was traveling to various locations around Los Angeles in a conspicuous red automobile, and the first person to find the disc jockey and fulfill a particular condition would …

"If the likelihood that a third person may react in a particular manner is a hazard which makes the actor negligent, such reaction whether innocent or negligent does not prevent the actor from being liable for the harm caused thereby.... Liability is imposed only if the risk of harm resulting from the act is deemed unreasonable—ie, if the gravity and likelihood

Whether a duty of care is owed in any particular instance is a question of law and "is the court's `expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection

Yes, the radio station owed a duty of care to the decedent. An entity that initiates a course of conduct owes a duty to those who may foreseeably be harmed by that conduct, including by the foreseeable negligent acts of third parties. The court reasoned that foreseeability of the risk is the primary consideration in establishing duty. It was entirely foreseeable that KHJ's youthful listeners, enticed by the nature of the contest, would race to the disc jockey's location and, in their haste, disregard highway safety. The fact that the harm was inflicted by the negligent driving of third parties (the teenagers) does not absolve KHJ of liability, because that specific negligent conduct was the very hazard the contest created. The court distinguished this situation, an act of misfeasance (creating a risk), from nonfeasance (failing to act), concluding that KHJ's affirmative act of creating a dangerous competition gave rise to a duty of care. Finally, the court dismissed the First Amendment defense, stating that free speech does not sanction the infliction of physical injury.

Yes, the radio station owed a duty of care to the decedent because the risk of harm from the promotional contest was foreseeable. The contest encouraged reckless behavior among the station's young audience, which could lead to dangerous driving and potential accidents. The fact that no prior injuries had occurred does not negate the foreseeability of the risk. The First Amendment does not protect broadcasters from liability for the physical consequences of their speech. The imposition of duty is justified by the gravity and likelihood of the danger posed by the contest, which outweighed its utility. Additionally, the court considered the guidance of history, concepts of morals and justice, and social judgment as to where the loss should fall in establishing the duty of care. The intervening negligent conduct of the minors does not absolve the radio station of liability, as their actions were a foreseeable hazard created by the contest. The entertainment value and commercial benefits of the contest cannot justify the creation of such a grave risk to the public.

Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot