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.
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.