Facts[]
Depue was a cattle buyer. He came to the Flatau's house on their invitation to examine some cattle before purchase however it was too dark to properly examine them. He asked if he could stay overnight in order to examine the cows in the morning, but the defendants refused – but they invited him for dinner. After dinner, when he was getting ready to leave he collapsed on the floor. It was clear at this point that he was very ill. He asked again to stay overnight, but again his request was denied. The son practically carried him out to his horse and buggy, put him on, threw the reigns over his shoulders and sent him on his way. Depue was found the next day almost frozen; he had fallen off his buggy less than a mile down the road and spent the entire night outside in the cold. He had to have several fingers amputated. Depue was unsuccessful at trial and appealled that decision.
Issue[]
- Did the defendants owe the appellant a duty and if so, did they violate it?
- Is the evidence sufficient to leave the question to the jury whether the respondents knew, or ought to have known that the appellant could not take care of himself?
Decision[]
Appeal allowed, new trial ordered.
Reasons[]
The respondents insist that they owed no duty to the plaintiff, and that they were not negligent in refusing to grant him accommodation for the night, or sending him home in the circumstances. However, the judge writes::
whenever a person is placed in such a position with regard to another that it is obvious that, if he does not use due care in his own conduct, he will cause injury to that person, the duty at once arises to exercise care commensurate with the situation . . .to avoid such danger . . .failure to perform the duty renders him liable for the consequences of his neglect.
The case is even stronger because the appellant was not trespassing on the land – the defendants invited him there! Therefore, this case all depends on whether or not the defendants knew or ought to have known that the plaintiff was unable to care for himself. This question should be left to the jury and thus a new trial is ordered.
Ratio[]
Whenever a person is placed in such a position with regard to another that it is obvious that, if he does not use due care in his own conduct, he will cause injury to that person, the duty at once arises to exercise care commensurate with the situation to avoid such danger; failure to perform the duty renders him liable for the consequences of his neglect.