| Venue: | MN SC |
| Facts: | Harper goes out on Herman's boat, and dives off into shallow water. He's now a quadriplegic. Herman knew the water was shallow, and didn't warn. |
| Posture: | Summary judgment at trial for the defendant. Court of appeals held that the owner of a boat assumes the duty to warn about shallowness by inviting guests. |
| Issue: | Does a boat owner who is a social host owe a duty of car to warn a guest that the water is too shallow for diving? |
| Holding: | No. Appeals court is reversed, and summary judgment is reinstated. |
| Rule: | Harper had no reasonable expectation that Herman would protect him, and Herman had no duty. Superior knowledge of a dangerous condition doesn't establish a duty to act. |
| Reasoning: | An affirmative duty to act generally only arises when there's a special relationship between the parties. Common carriers, for example, have a special relationship. Also inkeepers, people who have custody of others, etc. There's no record here that Harper was particularly vulnerable, or that Herman had any special power over Harper's welfare, or that Harper had any particular expectation of Herman for protection. |
| Dicta: | |