trans. denied. We then held as a general rule under the gratuitous undertaking concept, a person other than the driver is not liable for damages caused by the negligent acts of the driver unless that person has a special relationship that gives him or her the right to control the vehicle. Hawn, 598 N.E.2d at 633-34. In a footnote, we explained the wisdom of these "gratuitous undertaking" cases: The severity of our nation's drunk driving problem is apparent. In passing, we observe that courts should be reluctant to extend lability to those who gratuitously attempt to prevent intoxicated individuals from driving. A finding of liability in this case would encourage others to take no action rather than incur the risk of liability for failing to successfully con 4 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); Thelen v. Spilman, 251 Minn. 89, 86 N.W.2d
holding that summary judgment was not appropriate because whether the danger posed by a swimming pool was known or obvious was a fact question holding that estoppel was a question of fact holding that summary judgment against plaintiff was premature because determination of whether plaintiff was a trespasser invitee or licensee was question of fact holding that summary judgment was improper because there was a question of fact pertaining to whether a motorists gratuitous signal to pass was negligent holding that whether a plaintiffs reliance on defendants misrepresentations was justified is a question of fact precluding summary judgment