Baker v. Fenneman & Brown Properties, LLC Case Brief

Indiana Court of Appeals • 2003 • Docket #312762
793 N.E.2d 1203 2003 Ind. App. LEXIS 1560 2003 WL 22005975 Torts

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

3 min read

tl;dr: A customer fainted in a Taco Bell. The court held that the business had an affirmative duty to provide reasonable assistance, even though it did not cause the initial fainting spell, because of the special relationship between a business and its invitees.

Legal Significance: Adopts Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A, establishing that a business invitor has an affirmative duty to render reasonable aid to an invitee who is ill or injured on the premises, regardless of the cause of the initial harm.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Aaron Baker, a customer at a Taco Bell, felt ill and suddenly fainted after ordering a drink. He fell backward, struck his head, and began convulsing. The parties dispute the subsequent events. Baker claims no Taco Bell employee offered him any assistance. Taco Bell claims an employee asked Baker if he was okay and if he needed an ambulance, which Baker allegedly declined. Shortly after getting up, Baker fainted a second time, falling forward and sustaining severe injuries, including a fractured vertebra and the loss of four front teeth. Baker stumbled out of the restaurant and received help from a friend. He sued Taco Bell for negligence, alleging it breached its duty to render assistance after his first fall. The trial court granted summary judgment for Taco Bell, finding it owed no duty to Baker because it was not at fault for his initial collapse.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a business owner have an affirmative duty to render reasonable assistance to a business invitee who becomes ill or injured on the premises for reasons not attributable to the business owner’s fault?

Yes. A business invitor has an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Does a business owner have an affirmative duty to render reasonable assistance to a business invitee who becomes ill or injured on the premises for reasons not attributable to the business owner’s fault?

Conclusion

This case solidifies the business-invitee relationship as a special relationship that creates Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqu

Legal Rule

A possessor of land who holds it open to the public is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel

Legal Analysis

The court rejected the general tort principle of no duty to aid Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A business has an affirmative duty to provide reasonable assistance to
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolor

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial