Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation

Nature of the Case

Rudolph (P) appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation (D) in a lawsuit for the wrongful death of Rudolph’s daughter.

Facts

Grand Canyon Bass Busters (D) sponsored a fishing tournament. Some members objected to the chosen site as it was too congested with boat and jet ski traffic.

Grand Canyon got a permit from the U.S. Forest Service conditioned on an assurance that their participants operate their boats in a safe and reasonable manner without endangering peace and safety. Grand Canyon did not patrol the lake to ensure the conduct of its members because members were expected to police themselves. There were no safety instructions given but Grand Canyon did advise members to be courteous.

The lake was over 2,700 acres but there was only one weigh-in site located near the main boat launch area. The rules required members to return before the 1:00 p.m. deadline. The deceased, and a friend were riding their jet ski and were killed when a boat operated by Kirkland collided with the jet ski. Kirkland was participating in the tournament and the collision occurred 5 minutes before the tournament deadline with Kirkland running at 40 m.p.h. with five more miles to reach the weigh-in station.

Rudolph sued for wrongful death alleging that the defendants were negligent in providing only one weigh-in station and requiring all participants to return at the same time when the lake was congested and for negligently failing to supervise its members. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they owed no duty to Heather because there was no special relationship between them and that they were not in control of the actions of Kirkland or Heather. They claimed they owed no duty to Heather and that if they did any breach of that duty was not the cause of Heather’s death. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for the defendants. Rudolph appealed.

Issue

Must there be a special or personal relationship between parties in order to establish a duty of care to act as a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances?

Holding and Rule of Law

No. There need not be a special or personal relationship between parties in order to establish a duty of care to act as a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.

Duty is a matter of law to be decided by the trial court. If there is no duty, there can be no liability for negligent acts. Duty arises from the relations between individuals, which impose legal obligations between them. Defendants contend that there is no duty owed to Heather as she was not connected with the tournament and did not entrust herself to their care and that nothing in her conduct made her a foreseeable plaintiff. We disagree. Courts take a broad view of duty in both the risks and the class of victims. There is no requirement that a foreseeable plaintiff must be personally or specially connected in some way to the defendant for a duty to arise. Duty exists from the events and circumstances in life and from the simple non personal relationships that the parties may share from mere coincidence. Here, defendants owed a duty to all users of the lake to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. They owed a duty to exercise due care in the design and conduct of their activities. All persons are required to use ordinary care to prevent others from being injured as a result of their conduct. The actual specific details of conduct engaged in do not determine whether a duty is owed but merely show whether a party has in fact breached his duty of care. Here, the defendants owed plaintiff a duty to use reasonable care in designing and conducting their event to prevent other users of the lake from being injured. This is not an issue of controlling the conduct of Kirkland but whether defendants should have done more than they did to ensure reasonable conduct by tournament participants.

For a breach, we look to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm. Whether a party has breached his duty of care is decided by the trier of fact. The plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment on this issue. Grand Canyon knew the lake was congested, had only one weigh in station for a 2700 acre lake and established the 1:00 p.m. deadline. The standard to judge this conduct against is that of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. Plaintiff must show a reasonable connection between the defendant’s acts or omissions as the cause of injury. Such acts need not be a large part of the injury but at least they must be part of the causal result of the accident such that the accident would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct. Cause is established if the plaintiff can prove probable facts from which a but for causal relationship can be inferred.

From these facts, reasonable jurors may be able to conclude that despite the proclamations of Kirkland, they were still racing back to the weigh-in station. Summary judgment was not proper.

Disposition

Reversed and remanded.