Murray v. Mason
N20C-01-254 MAA
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Kelsey Murray was seriously injured in a dog attack that occurred months after Brandywine Valley SPCA (BVSPCA) had taken custody of the dog and later released it to a third party, Lauren Rizzo.
- The dog was surrendered to BVSPCA by Louis Pedrago with the consent of owner Jacob Lopez; Pedrago had requested euthanasia.
- Murray sued BVSPCA and others; the court previously dismissed most claims but allowed Murray to amend a single claim based on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (the ‘‘undertaking’’ doctrine).
- Murray’s amended complaint alleges BVSPCA undertook to protect the public by accepting the dog and (implicitly) arranging euthanasia, and that BVSPCA’s release increased risk leading to Murray’s injury.
- BVSPCA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court found Murray’s § 324A allegations legally insufficient: no cognizable undertaking to protect Murray/the public, and failure to satisfy any § 324A(a)–(c) alternative.
- The dismissal was entered with prejudice: § 324A claim fails because (a) no increased risk caused by BVSPCA’s conduct, (b) no duty owed by owner that BVSPCA undertook, and (c) no actionable reliance by the person to whom any undertaking was allegedly made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BVSPCA made an undertaking for protection of a third person under § 324A | BVSPCA accepted custody and agreed (through policies/statutes) to euthanize, so it undertook to protect Murray/the public | BVSPCA merely took possession of a surrendered dog; no specific promise tied to protection of Murray or the public | No — allegations too attenuated and not tailored to a third party; no viable § 324A undertaking alleged |
| Whether BVSPCA’s conduct increased risk under § 324A(a) | Release of the dog increased public risk compared to if BVSPCA had not taken the dog | BVSPCA did not materially change the dog’s condition; the dog was aggressive before surrender, so no increased risk caused by BVSPCA | No — plaintiff failed to plead a material change to the hazard; § 324A(a) not met |
| Whether BVSPCA undertook a duty owed by the owner under § 324A(b) | By accepting surrender and promising euthanasia, BVSPCA undertook an owner’s duty to protect others | No actionable duty from owner to Murray was alleged, nor a special relationship creating such a duty | No — Murray did not allege any duty owed to her by owner or that BVSPCA undertook such a duty |
| Whether there was detrimental reliance under § 324A(c) | Owner and others relied on BVSPCA to prevent the dog re-entering public, inducing inaction | Murray (the injured third party) did not know of or rely on any undertaking; owner’s/third-party reliance insufficiently pleaded | No — no allegation that Murray relied on or that owner’s reliance induced forgoing other precautions; § 324A(c) fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe 30’s Mother v. Bradley, 58 A.3d 429 (Del. Super. 2012) (discusses nature of § 324A undertaking and reliance)
- Patton v. Simone, 626 A.2d 844 (Del. Super. 1992) (defines ‘‘increased risk’’ as physical change/material alteration)
- Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894 (Del. 2002) (pleading standard and notice pleading limits)
- Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Cap. Holdings LLC, 27 A.3d 531 (Del. 2011) (12(b)(6) standard explained)
- Patentas v. United States, 687 F.2d 707 (3d Cir. 1982) (used on increased-risk analysis)
- Ricci v. Quality Bakers of Am. Coop. Inc., 556 F. Supp. 716 (D. Del. 1983) (continuing hazard alone insufficient for § 324A liability)
- Howell v. United States, 932 F.2d 915 (11th Cir. 1991) (illustrative on when alteration increases risk)
- Myers v. United States, 17 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 1994) (cited regarding when a duty is imposed)