Pierce v. Bishop
2011 Ohio 371
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Rebecca Pierce, administratrix of Bret Pierce's estate, sues Athens Towing for wrongful death in Meigs County, Ohio.
- Bishop, intoxicated and unlicensed, retrieved an impounded vehicle from Athens Towing after it was towed for illegal parking.
- Pierce alleges Athens Towing voluntarily assumed a duty to Bret Pierce by its safety policy and past practices.
- Athens Towing released the vehicle to the intoxicated driver; Bret Pierce died in a later crash caused by the driver.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Athens Towing; Pierce appeals arguing duty and breach questions exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Athens Towing owe Bret Pierce a duty of care? | Pierce argues the safety policy and past conduct create a duty. | Athens Towing did not undertake a duty to Bret Pierce beyond returning the car to the owner. | No duty found. |
| Does voluntary assumption of duty via policy constitute a duty to third parties? | Policy and prior acts show an undertaken duty to protect third parties. | General safety policies are aspirational and do not create a specific duty to third parties. | No assumption of duty under Restatement §324A(b). |
| Does Restatement (Second) of Torts §876(b) apply to create liability? | Athens Towing's actions may have constituted substantial assistance or encouragement. | Releasing the car does not amount to substantial assistance or encouragement. | No liability under §876(b). |
| If a duty existed, was there breach and proximate causation? | Athens Towing breached by releasing a drunk driver and contributing to harm. | No duty, so breach and causation need not be addressed. | Not addressed due to lack of duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 (2002-Ohio-4210) (duty formation is a question of foreseeability and policy considerations)
- Powers v. Boles, 110 Ohio App.3d 29 (1996-Ohio-) (applies section 323 on risk of harm when defendant's conduct creates risk)
- Muniz v. National Can Corp., 737 F.2d 145 (1st Cir. 1984) (general safety concern insufficient to show explicit undertaking of duty to third party)
- Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Tobias, 37 Ohio St.3d 127 (1988) (recognizes potential Restatement §876(b) basis for liability when substantial encouragement occurs)
- Allstate Fire Ins. Co. v. Singler, 14 Ohio St.2d 27 (1968) (establishes duty and negligence frameworks in Ohio tort law)