Weirum v. RKO General, Inc., 15 Cal. 3d 40, 123 Cal. Rptr. 468, 539 P.2d 36 (Cal. 1975)
Weirum v. RKO General is a cornerstone California Supreme Court decision at the intersection of negligence law, third-party acts, and media promotions.
Does a radio station that conducts a promotional contest encouraging listeners to rush to the location of an on-air personality owe a duty of care to the motoring public, and can it be held liable for a fatal accident caused by listeners' foreseeable negligent driving, notwithstanding arguments of intervening/superseding cause and First Amendment protection?
Under California negligence law, one owes a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid conduct that creates an unreasonable, foreseeable risk of harm to others (Rowland v. Christian). When a defendant's affirmative acts foreseeably induce negligent or reckless behavior by third parties, those third-party acts are not a superseding cause that breaks the causal chain. A defendant may be held liable where its conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about harm that was reasonably foreseeable. First Amendment protections do not immunize a defendant from tort liability for the foreseeable consequences of promotional activities that function as conduct creating an undue risk of physical harm.
Yes. The broadcaster owed a duty to the motoring public not to create an undue risk of harm. The teenagers' negligent driving was a foreseeable response to the contest and did not constitute a superseding cause. The First Amendment does not shield the station from liability for the foreseeable consequences of its promotional conduct. The judgment for the plaintiffs was affirmed.
Weirum is a leading case on duty, foreseeability, and intervening cause. It teaches that a defendant who affirmatively organizes or promotes conduct that foreseeably elicits dangerous responses by third parties owes a duty to foreseeable victims, and cannot escape liability by pointing to those third parties' negligence. It also clarifies that First Amendment protections do not extend to shield tort liability for promotional schemes that predictably endanger the public. For law students, Weirum is frequently paired with Rowland v. Christian and Palsgraf to illustrate foreseeability-driven duty analysis and the limits of superseding cause.