Opinion ID: 1655462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cause of Action Against Latchstring

Text: Finally, Barger argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Latchstring on the basis of its determination that Latchstring had no duty to supervise and control the conduct of its minor employees while they were on its premises after working hours. In Erickson v. Lavielle, 368 N.W.2d 624 (S.D.1985), we reiterated our holdings that the existence of a duty of care on the part of a defendant to a plaintiff is an essential element of a negligence action. See, e.g., Leslie v. City of Bonesteel, 303 N.W.2d 117 (S.D.1981); Johnson v. Straight's, Inc., 288 N.W.2d 325 (S.D.1980); Cuppy v. Bunch, 88 S.D. 22, 214 N.W.2d 786 (S.D.1974); Ecklund v. Barrick, 82 S.D. 280, 144 N.W.2d 605 (1966); Stoner v. Eggers, 77 S.D. 395, 92 N.W.2d 528 (1958). The concepts of duty and the standard of care owed a plaintiff are distinct but interdependent: It is better to reserve duty for the problem of the relation between individuals which imposes upon one a legal obligation for the benefit of the other, and to deal with particular conduct in terms of a legal standard of what is required to meet the obligation. In other words, duty is a question of whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff; and in negligence cases, the duty is always the sameto conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in the light of the apparent risk. What the defendant must do, or must not do, is a question of the standard of conduct required to satisfy the duty. The distinction is one of convenience only, and it must be remembered that the two are correlative, and one cannot exist without the other. Prosser & Keeton on The Law of Torts § 53, at 356 (5th Ed.1984). See Goff v. Wang, 296 N.W.2d 729 (S.D.1981). The existence of a duty is a question of law to be determined by the court. Erickson v. Lavielle, supra , and authorities cited therein; Prosser, supra, § 37, at 236. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1965) provides: There is no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless (a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection. The special relations referred to in clause (a) are found in [Restatement (Second) of Torts] §§ 316-319.... Cuppy v. Bunch, 88 S.D. at 25, 214 N.W.2d at 788. Section 317 provides: A master is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his servant while acting outside the scope of his employment as to prevent him from intentionally harming others or from so conducting himself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if (a) the servant (i) is upon the premises in possession of the master or upon which the servant is privileged to enter only as his servant, or (ii) is using a chattel of the master, and (b) the master (i) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his servant, and (ii) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. The trial court held that Latchstring had no knowledge that it had the ability to control its employees or that it should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. We conclude, however, that by imposing restrictions on its minor employees, including the ban of alcohol and drug use, Latchstring recognized that it had the ability to control its minor employees and that it was necessary for it to exercise such control. By voluntarily assuming and exercising such control, Latchstring assumed a duty of supervision. Cf. Erickson v. Lavielle, supra ; Steckman v. Silver Moon, 77 S.D. 206, 90 N.W.2d 170 (1958). We need not decide whether in the absence of its affirmative action in exercising supervision and control over the after-hours activities of its minor employees Latchstring would have been under a legally-imposed duty to do so. We do note, however, that the minors in the case before us were children only in the technical, legal sense of the word and were certainly not entitled to the solicitude due, say, a four-year-old child. See Schroeder v. Donlin, 79 S.D. 311, 111 N.W.2d 609 (1961). Nor were the minor employees employed or permitted to engage in a highly dangerous activity on Latchstring's premises. Cf. Bucholz v. City of Sioux Falls, 77 S.D. 322, 91 N.W.2d 606 (1958). It is enough for the purposes of the case before us to hold that Latchstring recognized that it had a duty of control over its minor employees and that it had undertaken to exercise that control. There remains the question whether Latchstring was negligent in exercising control over its minor employees. Plaintiff presented no evidence that would support a finding that Woodworth was aware, or should have been aware, that on the night in question Wares and his companions were violating the rules that prohibited the use of alcohol or drugs. Woodworth had made it clear to the young men that they were absolutely forbidden to drink alcoholic beverages and to use drugs. These prohibitions were, of course, also imposed upon the minor employees as a matter of state law. See SDCL 35-9-2; 35-9-4; SDCL ch. 22-42. As we indicated above, the minors were children only within the legal definition of that term. They were treated as responsible individuals and in turn were expected to act as such. In the absence of any knowledge that they were not doing so, Latchstring should not be charged with the duty of monitoring their behavior on a 24-hour-a-day basis. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c). We have adopted the principle that an affirmance of a trial court's grant of summary judgment is proper if there exists any basis which would support the court's ruling. Ruple v. Weinaug, 328 N.W.2d 857 (S.D.1983); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Delzer, 283 N.W.2d 244 (S.D.1979). Reasonable persons could not differ regarding the conclusion to be drawn from the facts presented, and Latchstring was accordingly entitled to the entry of summary judgment. Myers v. Lennox Co-op Ass'n, 307 N.W.2d 863 (S.D.1981). The summary judgment is affirmed in its entirety. FOSHEIM, C.J., and MORGAN, J., concur.