Opinion ID: 1058362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Assumption of Duty

Text: We turn next to the plaintiffs' argument that Worley assumed a duty of care to all of the minor guests who attended the party and that Worley breached that duty by failing to ensure that intoxicated guests did not leave the party. Worley argues that he did not assume such a duty, but that even if he did, he abandoned it. One who assumes to act, even though gratuitously, may thereby become subject to the duty of acting carefully. Stewart v. State, 33 S.W.3d 785, 793 (Tenn.2000) (quotation and citation omitted). Whether or not a person has assumed a duty to act is a question of law. Id. Worley stated that his rule would be that any minors who consumed alcohol would be required to spend the night, and that he intended to prevent minors from leaving the party if they had been drinking. He also admitted in his deposition, submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to his motion for summary judgment, that he had assumed responsibility for making sure that if the guests drank beer they would be safe, and that he was trying to be responsible for [the guests'] welfare by keeping them with me at home. He also testified that it was his intent and that he undertook to keep an eye on things and make sure nobody got hurt. Worley argues that he abandoned any duty he might have assumed by failing to enforce the rule, but his failure to enforce the rule is the very negligence of which the plaintiffs complain. Worley could have abandoned the duty by canceling the party, but once the guests had been invited, had arrived, and had begun drinking, Worley was not in a position to abandon the duty he had undertaken to protect them. Indeed, Worley's own testimony reflects that he continued to execute his duty well after the party started; he stated in his deposition that he patrolled and walked around in an attempt to keep an eye on things during the party. Worley argues that even if he assumed a duty to protect the guests who were invited to the party, he did not assume a duty as to either Jennifer or Brown, because Brown testified that they were unaware of the rule that guests who drank had to stay overnight. Worley argues that because there was no detrimental reliance on Worley's rule by either Jennifer or Brown, there can be no duty owed to them. However, Brown's testimony was contradicted by Ashley Worley's deposition testimony that she personally invited Brown and informed him of the rule, and by Dana Biscan's deposition testimony that both she and Jennifer intended to spend the night at the Worley farm. Considering these facts in the light most favorable to Jennifer, we must conclude that Brown and Jennifer were aware of the rule. Moreover, having undertaken a duty to protect his guests from the consequences of drinking and driving, reliance of any of the guests on Worley's protection was not required. Worley is liable if either (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking. Restatement § 324A (emphases added). Considering the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we hold that Worley did voluntarily assume a duty to the minors attending Ashley's party, including Jennifer and Brown, and we therefore affirm the trial court's decision to deny summary judgment on that basis as well. [5]