Bell v. HutsellAnnotate this Case
Plaintiff sought damages based on the death of her 18-year-old son in an automobile accident after allegedly consuming alcoholic beverages at defendants' residence. The trial court dismissed. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of counts IV through VI, but reversed and remanded as to counts I through III, which were based on a theory that defendants voluntarily undertook to prevent underage drinking and negligently performed that duty. The Supreme Court reversed, characterizing the case as involving "nonfeasance." Defendants owed no duty to prohibit voluntary possession or consumption of alcohol, and took no action to do so pursuant to their verbalized intent to monitor, which was communicated only to their son.