Opinion ID: 1844436
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interpretation of Section 324A(c)

Text: The majority also misinterprets section 324A(c) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Under that section, one who renders services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things is subject to liability if the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A(c). Thus, if a third party relies on Clay Electric's maintenance of streetlights, then Clay Electric owed a duty to maintain them. Using this principle, the majority assumes that Clay Electric, in undertaking to maintain the streetlights in Dante's neighborhood, arguably caused Delores Johnson to rely on the fact that the lights would be operating properly and that Dante's pathway to the school bus stop would be lighted. Majority op. at 1187. Nowhere in the record, however, does Ms. Johnson allege that she relied on the streetlights. The complaint merely alleges that the nonfunctionality of the streetlights was known to Clay Electric or existed for a sufficient length of time so that Clay Electric should have known of it. Moreover, a neighbor of Ms. Johnson testified that the two streetlights closest to the accident site never worked and had been out for years. Another neighbor testified that the light to the west of the accident site had been out the entire time he lived in the area (over seven years) and the light to the east of the accident site only worked intermittently. [23] This testimony was undisputed. Because the plaintiff did not even allege reliance, let alone submit evidence of it, no inference can reasonably be drawn from the record that anyone relied on a functioning streetlight. In sum, the Restatement simply does not support the majority's holding. Although a minority of courts across the country have imposed a duty to maintain streetlights, none have relied on the Restatement.