Moral Obligation at the Place of Business

Disclaimer: The following case background and solution are meant for educational purposes only. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Soldano v. O’Daniels, California Court of Appeal, 141, Cal. App. 3d 443, 190 Cal.Rptr. 310 (1983).

Case Background

“Villanueva entered Happy Jack’s Saloon, pulled a gun, and threatened to kill Soldano. A patron of Happy Jack’s ran across the street to a bar called the Circle Inn, told the bartender (the defendant) about the incident at Happy Jack’s and asked the bartender to call the police or allow him to make the call. The bartender refused. Soldano was killed by Villanueva. Soldano’s child (the plaintiff) brought a wrongful death action against the bartender. On the grounds that a person cannot be liable for non-actions, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s action. The plaintiff appealed to the court of appeal, arguing that the case should have been allowed to go to trial” (Meiners, Ringleb, and Edwards, 2000, p. 20).

Established Rule

Under the established rule one who has not created a peril ordinarily does not have a duty to take affirmative action to assist an imperiled person, so under past interpretations of established rule the bartender, O’Daniels, was not legally obligated to provide assistance in contacting the police. Certainly, few people would argue that he was not morally obligated to help with contacting the police or at the very least not prevent the good samaritan from contacting the police. Failure to execute this moral obligation may border on negligence, because it was not nonaction; denying use of the telephone was action to the contrary of Soldano’s safety.

The established rule could be interpreted widely beyond its original meaning. Perhaps the original intent was to provide a means for separating liability for perilous circumstances from the place or time of an event’s occurrence. For example, if someone is placed in jeopardy after a few months of time elapses due to actions by another party months ago or in a distant location, then the established rule might prevent that person from being held accountable. If the peril is separated by time and space, then the actor could not have reasonably known that his/her actions would place someone in jeopardy.

A number of factors may have had bearing on this case, which could have resulted in a potential modification to the interpretation of established rule. First, the bartender, O’Daniels, did not act to try to verify the claim of the good samaritan that Soldano was in jeopardy. Second, the bartender did not place the call to the police himself. Third, the bartender did not allow, possibly prevented, the good samaritan to contact the police using the telephone. Finally, the bartender did not attempt to help Soldano himself. O’Daniels might have argued that the warning by the good samaritan did not seem credible or that these threats occur all the time in the context of serving alcoholic beverages, but no set of circumstances explains his almost active resistance to helping a person that may have been in life-threatening circumstances. All of these factors made O’Daniels actions unreasonable given the circumstances, making it possible for the plaintiff to pursue civil damages in the absence of there being grounds for criminal action. Furthermore, it was not an issue of whether the help could have been provided at little cost to the defendant, but one of what is reasonable and customary given the moral context of the society. Soldano may have been shot anyway, but O’Daniels’ almost active negligence may have contributed to the threat against Soldano, and therefore, there may constitute grounds for a civil action judged by a jury trial.

Reference

Meiners, R.E., Ringleb, A.H., & Edwards, F.L. (2000). The legal environment of business (7th Ed.). New York: West Legal Studies in Business.