Walker v. EHCCI Home Care Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walker v. EHCCI Home Care Services, Inc.

211 A.D.2d 402, 621 N.Y.S.2d 301

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 3, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 402 (Walker v. EHCCI Home Care Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. EHCCI Home Care Services, Inc., 211 A.D.2d 402, 621 N.Y.S.2d 301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered July 25, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

"Unlike foreseeability and causation, which are factual issues to be determined by the jury, it is for the court to determine whether one member of society owes a duty to [403]*403another.” (Bodaness v Staten Is. Aid, 170 AD2d 637, 638.) Although defendants assert that their only obligations to plaintiff were "cooking, cleaning and other household tasks”, it is not disputed that defendant home care worker had been instructed about the symptoms of MS patients and the emergency circumstances under which an ambulance should be called for a patient, and had actually called "911” on plaintiff’s behalf on several occasions. Clearly, defendants owed a duty of care to plaintiff beyond contractual obligations to cook and clean. Whether this duty was breached when plaintiff was left unattended during the home care worker’s normal working hours that day and, if so, whether the events that followed were a foreseeable consequence, are, as the IAS Court indicated, questions that involve the reasonableness of defendants’ subsequent actions to ascertain plaintiff’s whereabouts, and raise triable issues of fact. We have considered defendants’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur —Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered July 25, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

"Unlike foreseeability and causation, which are factual issues to be determined by the jury, it is for the court to determine whether one member of society owes a duty to [403]*403another.” (Bodaness v Staten Is. Aid, 170 AD2d 637, 638.) Although defendants assert that their only obligations to plaintiff were "cooking, cleaning and other household tasks”, it is not disputed that defendant home care worker had been instructed about the symptoms of MS patients and the emergency circumstances under which an ambulance should be called for a patient, and had actually called "911” on plaintiff’s behalf on several occasions. Clearly, defendants owed a duty of care to plaintiff beyond contractual obligations to cook and clean. Whether this duty was breached when plaintiff was left unattended during the home care worker’s normal working hours that day and, if so, whether the events that followed were a foreseeable consequence, are, as the IAS Court indicated, questions that involve the reasonableness of defendants’ subsequent actions to ascertain plaintiff’s whereabouts, and raise triable issues of fact. We have considered defendants’ remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur —Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 402, 621 N.Y.S.2d 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-ehcci-home-care-services-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack