Master Indiana recognized a business’s duty to take reasonable steps to aid or protect an invitee who becomes ill or injured on the premises, even when the business did not cause the emergency. with this comprehensive case brief.
Baker v. Fenneman is a leading modern case on affirmative duties, carving out a clear obligation for businesses to render reasonable assistance to customers who fall ill or are injured on the premises. While common law generally imposes no duty to rescue strangers, the case reinforces the special-relationship exception for possessors of land who hold their premises open to the public and benefit from invitee patronage.
The Indiana Court of Appeals embraced Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A and wove it into Indiana’s duty analysis, holding that a business must at least take reasonable steps, such as summoning medical help and protecting a patron from further harm, when a customer suffers a medical emergency onsite. Baker’s significance lies in clarifying that the duty exists even when the business did not cause the emergency and that the required assistance is limited and reasonable, not professional or risky care.
793 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)
Baker, a customer at a Taco Bell restaurant operated by Fenneman & Brown Properties, LLC, suffered a sudden medical episode while on the premises. He collapsed and struck his head and face, allegedly bleeding and sustaining injuries. According to Baker, restaurant employees did not render assistance and did not promptly summon medical help or take protective measures to prevent further harm. Baker fell a second time and suffered additional injuries. He sued the restaurant for negligence, asserting that as a business open to the public, it had a duty to provide reasonable assistance to a business invitee experiencing a medical emergency on its premises. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding no duty was owed under the circumstances. Baker appealed.
Does a business that holds its premises open to the public owe a duty to take reasonable action to aid or protect a business invitee who becomes ill or is injured on the premises, even when the business did not cause the medical emergency?
Yes. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A and Indiana’s duty framework, a possessor of land who holds it open to the public owes invitees an affirmative duty to take reasonable action to aid or protect them when they become ill or injured on the premises. The duty is limited to reasonable steps under the circumstances, such as promptly summoning medical assistance and taking reasonable measures to prevent further harm, and does not require providing professional medical treatment or putting employees at risk.
The Indiana Court of Appeals held that a business owes a duty to take reasonable steps to aid or protect a business invitee who becomes ill or is injured on its premises, even if the business did not cause the emergency. The court reversed summary judgment for the defendant and remanded for further proceedings.
The court began with Indiana’s duty analysis, which considers the relationship between the parties, the foreseeability of harm, and public policy concerns. First, the relationship was that of possessor of land and business invitee, a recognized special relationship that gives rise to affirmative duties. The business invites the public for its benefit and is in a superior position to act quickly when an emergency occurs on its premises. Second, the harm was foreseeable: it is not extraordinary that a patron might suddenly become ill or collapse in a public restaurant, and failing to respond appropriately creates a foreseeable risk of additional harm. Third, public policy supports a limited duty. The burden on businesses to take minimal steps—such as calling 911, keeping the area safe, and providing reasonable protective assistance within employees’ capabilities—is slight compared to the significant risk of harm to patrons if no one acts. The court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A, which recognizes a duty arising from special relationships, including the relationship between a business that holds its premises open to the public and its invitees. Citing persuasive authorities from other jurisdictions, the court emphasized that the duty is bounded: it does not require specialized medical care, does not compel employees to endanger themselves, and does not transform businesses into medical providers. Rather, it requires reasonable assistance commensurate with the circumstances, including promptly summoning medical help and taking sensible steps to protect the patron from further injury until help arrives. Because the trial court concluded there was no duty as a matter of law, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, making clear that breach and causation remain issues for the fact-finder under the articulated standard.
Baker is a foundational case on affirmative duties and premises liability, frequently used to teach the special-relationship exception to the no-duty-to-rescue rule. It clarifies that businesses must provide reasonable assistance to patrons experiencing medical emergencies, even when the business is not at fault for the initial illness or injury. For students, the case illustrates how courts integrate the Restatement with state duty analyses, balance foreseeability and policy, and cabin the scope of affirmative duties to steps like summoning medical aid and preventing further harm.
Not necessarily. Baker imposes a duty to take reasonable steps under the circumstances, which typically includes promptly calling 911 and taking basic protective measures. The duty does not require providing professional medical care or placing employees at undue risk. Whether CPR or first aid is required depends on what is reasonable for laypersons under the circumstances and any applicable training.
No. Baker is explicit that the duty arises from the special relationship between business and invitee and exists even when the business did not cause the medical emergency. The focus is on reasonable assistance once the emergency arises on the premises.
The general rule remains that there is no duty to rescue strangers. Baker falls within a recognized exception for special relationships, including the possessor of land who holds the premises open to the public and its invitees. That special relationship creates an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to aid or protect.
Core actions include promptly summoning medical assistance (calling 911), monitoring and safeguarding the patron from further harm (for example, clearing crowds or hazards), and taking nontechnical protective measures within employees’ capabilities. Reasonableness is fact-specific and considers the circumstances, employee training, and safety.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no duty. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a duty exists as a matter of law for businesses to provide reasonable assistance to invitees who become ill or injured on the premises, and remanded for further proceedings on breach and causation.
Good Samaritan statutes generally provide immunity for voluntary aid rendered in good faith; they do not negate the special-relationship duty recognized in Baker. The duty still exists, but the statutes may protect those who render assistance from certain liability when they act reasonably and in good faith.
Baker v. Fenneman cements the principle that businesses open to the public owe a limited, affirmative duty to aid or protect invitees who become ill or injured on their premises. While the common law does not impose a general duty to rescue, the special relationship between a business and its customers justifies a duty to take minimal, reasonable steps—most centrally, to summon medical help and prevent additional harm.
For practice and exams, Baker provides a clean template for duty analysis: identify the special relationship, evaluate foreseeability and public policy, state the bounded scope of the duty, and then separate duty from breach and causation. The case underscores that reasonable, prompt assistance is both practically achievable and legally required in public-facing businesses.