Opinion ID: 2344656
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Special Relationships

Text: Regardless of the distinction between Horridge [5] and this case, it is evident that the relationship of one party to another may give rise to a duty under certain circumstances. In rationalizing these special relationships, the Court has adopted the reasoning of several sections, reflective of our common law, of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, [6] or reasoned from the affirmative action of one party, on the basis of which the other party relies to his or her detriment. [7] These relationships are often separate and distinct, yet they both involve the same duty and responsibility, however the resulting relationship is forged or develops. As the appellant sees it, the State did an affirmative act when it removed him from his mother's care and his parents' custody, thus establishing a special relationship with, and a concomitant duty to, him, as one of the children in the State's care. This use of affirmative act, however, blurs the distinction between the application of the common law duty and the reliance duty. We shall analyze the duty that arises out of special relationships in both contexts.