Bell v. Hutsell
2011 IL 110724
Ill.2011Background
- Daniel Bell, 18, died in a single-car crash after allegedly consuming alcohol at defendants’ residence during a party hosted by their son.
- Plaintiff Janet Bell sued defendants Jeffrey and Sara Hutsell on nine counts, including voluntary undertaking theories (Counts I–III).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615; circuit court dismissed all counts with prejudice.
- Appellate Court affirmed as to Counts IV–VI, but reversed and remanded Counts I–III, based on voluntary undertaking under Restatement §§ 323, 324A.
- Illinois Supreme Court granted to review and reversed the appellate court on Counts I–III, declining to recognize a duty under voluntary undertaking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary undertaking supports a duty here. | Bell argues undertaking to prevent underage drinking creates duty. | Hutsell contends no duty because no alcohol provided; no social host liability. | No duty under voluntary undertaking; nonfeasance. |
| Whether Restatement §323 or §324A applies to the alleged facts. | Alleges duties to monitor/inspect guests under §323/§324A. | Arguments do not establish a cognizable undertaking or increased risk. | Allegations insufficient to support duty or liability under §323 or §324A. |
| Whether reliance or change of position elements were present. | Guests relied on defendants’ undertaking to prohibit underage drinking. | No communication of intent to guests; no reliance shown. | Lack of reliance/notice defeats liability. |
| Whether nonfeasance vs misfeasance matters. | Failure to act could still create liability. | Nonfeasance requires showing undertaking commenced. | Facts show nonfeasance; no liability under voluntary undertaking. |
| Whether Illinois social host liability doctrine precludes voluntary undertaking claims. | Voluntary undertaking is a distinct theory apart from social host liability. | Social host rule bars liability for providing alcohol; undertaking differs. | Statutory social host rule not controlling; but here no duty under undertaking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wakulich v. Mraz, 203 Ill.2d 223 (Ill. 2003) (voluntary undertaking unders Restatement; focus on duty and conduct after intoxication)
- Charles v. Seigfried, 165 Ill.2d 482 (Ill. 1995) (social host liability generally precluded; exceptions via undertaking)
- Simmons v. Homatas, 236 Ill.2d 459 (Ill. 2010) (affirmative conduct increasing risk; different from nonfeasance in undertaking)
- Frye v. Medicare-Glaser Corp., 153 Ill.2d 26 (Ill. 1992) (limits on duty arising from voluntary undertaking; narrowly construed)
- Pippin v. Chicago Housing Authority, 78 Ill.2d 204 (Ill. 1979) (duty elements in negligence; relationship to undertakings)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill.2d 422 (Ill. 2006) (appellate procedure; issues properly presented when reviewing reversed judgments)