Farwell v. Keaton
Michigan Supreme Court
396 Mich. 281, 240 N.W.2d 217 (1976)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Siegrist (defendant) and Farwell drove to a parking lot to return a car, and then waited there for a friend. They saw two girls walk by the lot, and followed them down the street. The girls complained to their friends, including Daniel and Donald Keaton, that Siegrist and Farwell were following them. The girls' friends then chased Siegrist and Farwell and severely beat Farwell. Siegrist found Farwell and applied an ice pack to his head. Siegrist then drove Farwell around for two hours, and Farwell fell asleep in the back of the car. Around midnight, Siegrist parked the car at Farwell’s grandparents’ house, tried unsuccessfully to wake Farwell, and then left, with Farwell still unconscious in the back of the car. Farwell was found the next morning and died of his injuries three days later. Farwell’s father (plaintiff) brought a wrongful death action, arguing that Siegrist knew that Farwell was badly injured and that Farwell would not have died if Siegrist had taken Farwell to the hospital or notified someone of his condition. The jury found for Farwell’s father, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Siegrist did not have an affirmative duty to aid Farwell and that Siegrist did not know that Farwell needed medical assistance.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Levin, J.)
Dissent (Fitzgerald, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
