Zalak v. Carroll

New York Court of Appeals

Zalak v. Carroll

205 N.E.2d 313, 15 N.Y.2d 753, 257 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1666

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by33 cases

This text of 205 N.E.2d 313 (Zalak v. Carroll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zalak v. Carroll, 205 N.E.2d 313, 15 N.Y.2d 753, 257 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1666 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendants had undertaken to care for the four-year-old plaintiff during periods in which her mother worked. Although when the arrangement for the daily care of the child began defendants were compensated by the mother, no payments were being made at the time of infant plaintiff’s injury because of a prior reduction in the mother’s earnings. Even without compensation, when defendants undertook to control a young child and provide care for her, they became responsible for her injury through their negligence (Miller v. International Harvester Co., 193 App. Div. 258; Wallace v. Casey Co., 132 App. Div. 35; Wittenberg v. Seitz, 8 App. Div. 439; Gregaydis v. Watervliet Civic Chest, 14 A D 2d 623; Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N. Y. 236). Thus defendants’ duty to use reasonable care to protect the infant was not measured by what their duty would have been to a social guest or a mere licensee. They were required to use reasonable care to protect the infant plaintiff from injury. The decision of the trial court on the question of their negligence is supported by the weight of evidence.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Burke and Bergan concur in Memorandum; Judges Van Voorhis and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm.

Order reversed and judgment of the Supreme Court reinstated, with costs to plaintiff in this court and in the Appellate Division in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum: Defendants had undertaken to care for the four-year-old plaintiff during periods in which her mother worked. Although when the arrangement for the daily care of the child began defendants were compensated by the mother, no payments were being made at the time of infant plaintiff’s injury because of a prior reduction in the mother’s earnings. Even without compensation, when defendants undertook to control a young child and provide care for her, they became responsible for her injury through their negligence (Miller v. International Harvester Co., 193 App. Div. 258; Wallace v. Casey Co., 132 App. Div. 35; Wittenberg v. Seitz, 8 App. Div. 439; Gregaydis v. Watervliet Civic Chest, 14 A D 2d 623; Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N. Y. 236). Thus defendants’ duty to use reasonable care to protect the infant was not measured by what their duty would have been to a social guest or a mere licensee. They were required to use reasonable care to protect the infant plaintiff from injury. The decision of the trial court on the question of their negligence is supported by the weight of evidence.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Burke and Bergan concur in Memorandum; Judges Van Voorhis and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm.

Order reversed and judgment of the Supreme Court reinstated, with costs to plaintiff in this court and in the Appellate Division in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 N.E.2d 313, 15 N.Y.2d 753, 257 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zalak-v-carroll-ny-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack