Soldano v. O'DANIELS Case Brief
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
tl;dr: A bartender refused to let a patron use the business’s phone to call police about a man being threatened nearby. The man was killed. The court found the business had a duty not to interfere with the attempt to summon aid.
Legal Significance: Establishes a narrow exception to the common law “no duty to aid” rule. A business open to the public may not refuse use of its phone to a person seeking to summon aid for another in imminent peril, creating a duty of non-interference.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Darrell Soldano was threatened and subsequently killed at Happy Jack’s Saloon. Before the killing, a patron from Happy Jack’s entered the Circle Inn, a restaurant across the street owned by defendant O’Daniels. The patron informed the Circle Inn’s bartender that a man was being threatened at Happy Jack’s and requested to use the telephone to call the police, or that the bartender call for him. The bartender refused both requests. Shortly thereafter, Soldano was fatally shot. The telephone was assumed to be located in a public portion of the Circle Inn, and allowing its use would have incurred no risk or cost to the defendant. Soldano’s son filed a wrongful death action against O’Daniels, alleging negligence based on the bartender’s refusal to permit the call. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding no legal duty existed, and the plaintiff appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a business establishment have a legal duty to permit a third party to use a telephone in a public portion of the business to summon emergency aid for a specific individual known to be in imminent danger of physical harm?
Yes. The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the defendant’s employee 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 oc
IRAC Legal Analysis
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 establishment have a legal duty to permit a third party to use a telephone in a public portion of the business to summon emergency aid for a specific individual known to be in imminent danger of physical harm?
Conclusion
This case is a significant precedent that creates a limited, situational duty 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
Legal Rule
While the common law generally imposes no duty to aid another in 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 des
Legal Analysis
The court acknowledged the traditional common law distinction between misfeasance (action) and 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 cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur ad
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A business establishment has a duty to permit a person to