Court: California Supreme Court; August 21, 1975; California; State Supreme Court
In the case Weirum v. RKO General, Inc., the Supreme Court of California addresses a tragic incident resulting from a contest held by radio station KHJ, which had a significant teenage audience. The contest involved locating a disc jockey, Donald Steele, who drove a prominent red car throughout the Los Angeles area. Two minors, Robert Sentner and Marsha Baime, attempted to pursue Steele after listening to his whereabouts broadcasted by KHJ.
During this pursuit, Sentner negligently forced another vehicle off the highway, leading to a fatal accident that killed the car's sole occupant. The deceased's family subsequently sued KHJ, resulting in a jury verdict against the station. The court's primary issue was whether KHJ owed a duty of due care to the decedent. The radio station, aiming to enhance its appeal and advertising revenue through the "Super Summer Spectacular," had conducted the contest on July 16, 1970, with a budget of approximately $40,000, designed to engage its audience and promote excitement.
KHJ's broadcasts encouraged listeners to find Steele for a cash prize, creating an environment that contributed to the minors' reckless driving. The case highlights the responsibilities of media entities in ensuring public safety when promoting contests that could lead to dangerous behavior.
Two drivers, Sentner and Baime, independently decided to follow a vehicle driven by Steele, hoping to arrive first at a location where a contest question would be announced. They engaged in competitive driving, reaching speeds up to 80 mph. Approximately a mile and a half from the Westlake offramp, they heard a radio broadcast from KHJ, announcing Steele's giveaway event in Thousand Oaks. As they attempted to follow Steele off the freeway, Baime or Sentner forced another vehicle, driven by the decedent, onto the center divider, causing it to overturn. Baime stopped to report the accident, while Sentner briefly informed a police officer before continuing to pursue Steele and successfully claimed a cash prize.
The decedent's family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Sentner, Baime, RKO General, Inc. (KHJ's owner), and the car manufacturer. Sentner settled before trial, while the jury awarded $300,000 against Baime and KHJ, finding in favor of the car manufacturer. KHJ appealed the judgment and the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The primary issue is whether KHJ owed a duty to the decedent based on its contest broadcast.
Duty is a legal question, determined by policy considerations, while foreseeability of risk is a factual question for the jury. KHJ argued that the record did not show foreseeability of harm to the decedent. However, the jury’s verdict implied that the decedent was indeed exposed to a foreseeable risk, supported by substantial evidence. The events occurred during a summer when young people were free and responsive to promotional activities, which KHJ aimed to exploit to attract listeners.
Defendant's broadcasts created a foreseeable risk that youthful contestants would engage in reckless driving to reach prize locations, disregarding highway safety. Testimony indicated that contestants often followed the host from site to site, demonstrating that such behavior was anticipated by the defendant. The absence of prior injuries does not absolve the defendant of liability, as foreseeability is determined by potential risks, not previous occurrences. While it is generally accepted that one can assume others will not act negligently, this principle does not apply if the defendant should have anticipated the possibility of negligent third-party actions. In this case, the reckless conduct of contestants, driven by the defendant's broadcasts, posed a significant hazard to others, including the decedent.
Liability arises when the risk of harm is deemed unreasonable, especially when the danger of high-speed chases outweighs any entertainment value provided by the contest. The defendant's argument that the First Amendment protects them from accountability fails, as the issue at hand is civil responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their broadcast, which created an undue risk of harm. Concerns about expanding liability to other situations are misplaced; the nature of this contest was a unique and heightened risk scenario, distinct from ordinary promotional events.
Defendant argues that any urgency in purchasing the commodity is a natural consequence of its scarcity, contrasting this with the competitive behavior encouraged by the defendant's actions, which involved active solicitation to be first at a location. The defendant cites section 315 of the Restatement Second of Torts, asserting that it owed no duty of care to the decedent without a special relationship. However, the court clarifies that this section does not apply when the plaintiff's complaint is based on the defendant's affirmative act that created an undue risk of harm. The distinction between misfeasance (creating a risk) and nonfeasance (failing to act) is emphasized, noting that liability for nonfeasance typically requires a special relationship. In this case, the defendant's actions are categorized as misfeasance, thus making section 315 irrelevant. The discussion also addresses a jury instruction that was inadvertently omitted but later provided by the judge after the jury began deliberations. The instruction, which stated that one directing another's actions must do so with due care, was contested by the defendant as being overly focused on a single party. However, the court notes that the defendant had requested a similar instruction and therefore cannot contest its substance. The defendant's claims of undue prejudice from the timing of the instruction are also dismissed.
The trial court has the inherent authority to recall jurors for additional instructions as established in case law. If a jury is recalled to read omitted instructions, the risk of overemphasis can be mitigated by the judge advising the jury not to attach undue significance to the recalled instructions or by rereading all instructions. In this case, the trial judge's introductory comments effectively minimized any potential bias. The defendant did not request further cautionary instructions or a complete rereading of all instructions, which is significant as precedent dictates that a party cannot later object to the method of instruction if they did not act to address it during the trial. The judgment and orders in question are affirmed, with plaintiffs awarded costs on appeal, while each party bears its own costs on the cross-appeal. Additionally, the document addresses the applicability of duty in negligence cases, referencing prior cases regarding the duty owed in various contexts, and emphasizes that the jury's finding of foreseeability in the present case is supported by evidence. A specific instruction regarding business conduct and the assumption of others performing their duties was also referenced, clarifying that a business entity is not negligent if it has no reasonable cause to anticipate an accident resulting from another's violation of the law.
