## Facts

- Theodor H. Herman owned and operated a 26-foot recreational boat on Lake Minnetonka and invited several social guests for an outing.
- Jeffrey J. Harper, age 20, attended as a guest invited by another passenger and had not previously known Herman.
- Herman suggested swimming near Big Island and anchored the boat roughly 100–200 yards from shore in an area suitable for ladder entry and swimming; the lake bottom was not visible from the boat.
- Herman knew the water near Big Island stayed shallow for a significant distance from shore.
- While Herman was lowering the swim ladder, Harper asked whether Herman was going into the water; after Herman said yes, Harper immediately dove from the side of the boat into approximately two to three feet of water.
- Harper struck the lake bottom, suffered a spinal cord injury, and became a C6 quadriplegic.
- Harper sued, alleging Herman negligently failed to warn that the water was too shallow for diving.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Herman; the court of appeals reversed; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a boat owner and social host owes an affirmative duty to warn an adult guest that surrounding water is too shallow for diving when the host has superior knowledge of local conditions.
2. Whether the boat owner’s invitation to guests and operation of the boat created a “special relationship” imposing a duty to protect or warn.
3. Whether the host assumed a duty to protect the guest by conduct connected to the swimming stop.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for Herman.
- The court held Herman owed no duty to warn Harper that the water was too shallow for diving.
- No “special relationship” existed that would create an affirmative duty to protect or warn.
- Superior knowledge of the shallow depth, without a qualifying duty relationship, was insufficient to impose liability.
- Herman did not assume a duty to protect Harper through any undertaking beyond ordinary social hosting.

## Legal Principles

- As a general rule, a person has no affirmative duty to aid, protect, or warn another absent a recognized “special relationship.”
- Special relationships imposing affirmative duties typically involve custody or dependency limiting the plaintiff’s normal ability to protect themselves (e.g., common carrier–passenger, innkeeper–guest).
- An adult social guest on a recreational boat is not, without more, in a custodial or dependent relationship that imposes an affirmative duty to warn or protect.
- Superior knowledge of a danger does not alone create a duty to warn where no affirmative duty otherwise exists.
- Diving into water of unknown depth may be treated as an open and obvious risk for an adult capable of self-protection.
- An assumed duty arises from an undertaking to render protective services that induces reliance; mere invitation and participation in a social activity do not, by themselves, constitute such an undertaking.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that a recreational boat owner acting as a social host did not owe an adult guest an affirmative duty to warn against diving into unknown shallow water absent a recognized special relationship or an undertaken protective service creating reliance, and it reinstated summary judgment for the defendant.


Harper v. Herman, 499 N.W.2d 472 (Minn. 1993)