Opinion ID: 901338
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Duty to Keep a Home Secured in a Gratuitous Undertaking

Text: [¶ 21.] State Auto contends that Ault, after watering Close's plants, letting the cat in, and checking his home, owed him a duty to re-secure the home upon leaving. State Auto argues this duty arose out of their relationship in which Ault was apparently watching and taking care of Close's home. State Auto further argues that Ault had a duty to keep the home secured because it was foreseeable that if she did not keep the home locked, an unauthorized person could enter and cause harm to the home or its contents. [¶ 22.] Generally, the law imposes no duty to prevent the misconduct of a third person. Walther v. KPKA Meadowlands Ltd. Partnership, 1998 SD 78, ¶ 17, 581 N.W.2d 527, 531 (citing Gleason v. Peters, 1997 SD 102, ¶ 8, 568 N.W.2d 482, 484; Tipton v. Town of Tabor, 1997 SD 96, ¶ 12, 567 N.W.2d 351, 357 ( Tipton II )). However, [a] duty can be created by ... common law. Walther, 1998 SD 78, ¶ 38, 581 N.W.2d at 535 (citing Poelstra v. Basin Elec. Power Coop., 1996 SD 36, ¶ 11, 545 N.W.2d 823, 826). There are two essential elements required in the imposition of a duty to protect against the misconduct of a third person: (1) the existence of a special relationship between the parties and (2) a finding that wrongful activity is foreseeable. Small v. McKennan Hosp., 437 N.W.2d 194, 199 (S.D. 1989) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 (1965)). See also Walther, 1998 SD 78, ¶ 41, 581 N.W.2d at 535.