| Venue: | MI SC |
| Facts: | Siegrist and Farwell hit on some girls. They get chased by the boyfriends. Farwell gets a beatdown. Siegrist finds him later, and takes him to some drive-in restaurants. Farwell is sleepy, and conks out. Siegrist leaves him in the car at his grandparents' driveway. He dies three days later, but chances are he could have been saved had he gotten prompt treatment. |
| Posture: | Verdict for plaintiff at trial. Appeals court reverses saying that Siegrist had no duty to obtain aid for Farwell. |
| Issue: | Did Siegrist have a duty of care? |
| Holding: | Yes. Jury verdict reinstated. |
| Rule: | Being "companions on a social venture" creates a special relationship between the parties, giving rise to the duty to obtain care for your co-partier, if you have notice that he or she is in trouble. |
| Reasoning: | The court basically reiterates the facts: Siegrist knew Farwell was hurt. It also notes that everyone has the duty to avoid affirmative acts that make the situation worse. Where performance of aid has begun, there's a duty to see it through. Then this "companions on a social venture" relationship is announced. QED. |
| Dicta: | Dissent: there's no authority for this standard, and we shouldn't elevate moral obligations to legal duties in cases like this. |