FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 3,104 times | Saved to 242 briefcases
Zelenko v Gimbel Bros, Inc (1935), 287 NYS 134 (Sup Ct), aff'd (1936), 287 NYS 136 (App Div)

Facts:

Plaintiff’s intestate took ill in defendant’s store. Defendant tried to render medical aid, but to no avail. Plaintiff argued that if defendant had left the intestate alone, someone would have summoned an ambulance.

Ratio:

The general rule: if a defendant owes a plaintiff no duty, then refusal to act is not negligence.

However, a person may assume a duty by meddling in matter with which legalistically it had no concern.

Analysis:

This case constitutes an exception to the general proposition that if a defendant owes a plaintiff no duty, then refusal to act is not negligence. There are times when a defendant’s duty to act may arise.

The defendant assumed a duty by meddling in matter with which legalistically it had no concern.

Holding:

Decision in favour of plaintiff.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.