Zelenko v. Gimbel Bros.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLatter, J.
The general proposition of law is that if a defendant owes a plaintiff no duty, then refusal to act is not negligence. (Palsgraf v. L. I. R. R. Co., 248 N. Y. 339.) But there are many ways that a defendant’s duty to act may arise. Plaintiff’s intestate was taken ill in defendant’s store. We will assume that defendant owed her no duty at all — that defendant could have let her be and die. But if a defendant undertakes a task, even if under no duty to undertake it, the defendant must not omit to do what an ordinary man would do in performing the task.
*905Here the defendant undertook to render…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Middleton v. . WhitridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
3Cited by28 opinions
- Lindsey v. Miami Development Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1985
- President & Directors of Georgetown College v. HughesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Brown v. MacPherson's, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1975
- Alfaro v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Hovermale v. Berkeley Springs Moose Lodge No. 1483West Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.