## Facts

- David Siegrist (16) and Richard Farwell (18) spent the evening together, drank beer, and went to a trailer lot to return a borrowed car.
- After the pair followed two girls, a group of youths chased them; Siegrist escaped, and Farwell was severely beaten.
- Siegrist later found Farwell under a car, applied ice to his head, and took charge of him by driving him around for about two hours while Farwell slept in the back seat.
- Near midnight, Siegrist drove to Farwell’s grandparents’ home, parked in the driveway, unsuccessfully tried to wake Farwell, and left without notifying the grandparents or obtaining medical help.
- The next morning, the grandparents found Farwell in the car and took him to a hospital; Farwell died three days later from an epidural hematoma.
- Medical testimony indicated that timely treatment before or shortly after loss of consciousness carried a high likelihood of survival.
- Evidence supported that Siegrist knew Farwell was badly injured and believed he should have acted.

## Issues

1. Whether a duty to take reasonable steps to obtain aid arose from a special relationship between companions on a social venture.
2. Whether a duty arose because Siegrist voluntarily undertook to render aid and took charge of Farwell.
3. Whether the evidence permitted the jury to find breach and proximate causation for wrongful death.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the jury’s verdict for the plaintiff.
- The Court held there was sufficient evidence that Siegrist knew or should have known Farwell was in serious peril and had an affirmative duty to act.
- The Court held the duty could be found on either of two bases: (1) the parties’ relationship as companions engaged in a common social venture, and (2) Siegrist’s voluntary undertaking to aid Farwell.
- The Court held the reasonableness of Siegrist’s conduct and proximate cause were properly left to the jury, and the record supported the jury’s findings.

## Legal Principles

- Absent special circumstances, tort law generally imposes no duty to rescue a stranger; an affirmative duty to aid may arise from a recognized special relationship when the defendant knows or should know of the other’s peril.
- Companions engaged in a common social venture may have a special relationship creating a duty to render reasonable assistance to one another when peril is apparent and aid can be given without unreasonable risk.
- A person who voluntarily undertakes to render aid and takes charge of another must exercise reasonable care in providing assistance; liability may follow if the undertaking is performed negligently.
- When duty is established, breach and proximate causation commonly present fact questions for the jury when supported by evidence, including medical testimony on the effect of delay in treatment.

## Conclusion

The court held that Siegrist’s relationship with Farwell as a companion on a social venture and his assumption of control by undertaking aid supported an affirmative duty to obtain reasonable assistance, and the jury could reasonably find that Siegrist’s failure to do so breached that duty and contributed to Farwell’s death.


Farwell v. Keaton, 396 Mich. 281, 240 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 1976)