Main Content
XI. Duty to Control Others
At common law, a person does not generally have an affirmative duty to control the conduct of another. An exception to this rule exists when a special relationship between parties is sufficient to establish a duty of care. Such a duty can be symmetrical (husband-wife) or asymmetrical (adult-minor, doctor-patient). The nature of the relationship determines the nature of the duty owed. _Tarasoff_ lays out the doctrine and arguments for and against the rule. _Broadbent_ focuses on whether parents have a duty to protect their children from hurting themselves. _Hawkins_ shows the bounds of a doctor’s duty to her patient, including the recurring theme of foreseeability of harm to a known plaintiff. The contrasting approaches in _Charles_ and _Kelly_ show the majority and minority (New Jersey) rules for social host liability. _Einhorn_ discusses the landlord-tenant relationship and the limits of the duty within it. The extent to which the owner-invitee relationship requires protecting invitees from third party criminal acts is explored in _Boyd_.
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.