Opinion ID: 2149776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: overview of duty

Text: The district court granted U-Haul Center's motion for summary judgment, finding that U-Haul Center did not owe a duty to Shari. Shari views the matter differently. She contends U-Haul Center owed her a duty because her mother, Judith, rented the truck and her father, Dale, drove it. She argues it was reasonably foreseeable that friends and family would assist Judith and Dale in moving, so a special relationship existed. Shari argues U-Haul Center had a duty to warn of the dangers of using the truck, which extended not just to Judith, who signed the contract, but to all those who used the rental truck. U-Haul Center counters that for a duty to exist, a relationship must exist between the parties that imposes a legal obligation on one party to protect another party. It argues that because no contractual or special relationship existed between Shari and U-Haul Center, U-Haul Center owed her no duty. [4-6] The threshold inquiry in any negligence action is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty. [4] Actionable negligence cannot exist if there is no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from injury. [5] Whether a legal duty exists for actionable negligence is a question of law dependent on the facts in a particular case. [6] [7,8] A duty, in negligence cases, may be defined as an obligation, to which the law will give recognition and effect, to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another. [7] When determining whether a legal duty exists for actionable negligence, a court considers (1) the magnitude of the risk, (2) the relationship of the parties, (3) the nature of the attendant risk, (4) the opportunity and ability to exercise care, (5) the foreseeability of the harm, and (6) the policy interest in the proposed solution. [8] [9-11] The duty of reasonable care generally does not extend to third parties absent other facts establishing a duty. [9] The common law has traditionally imposed liability only if the defendant bears some special relationship to the potential victim. [10] Regardless of whether a duty of reasonable care exists, a duty to warn cannot be imposed absent a special relationship. [11]