Rasnick v. Krishna Hospitality, Inc.
289 Ga. 565
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Rasnick sued Krishna Hospitality, Inc. for wrongful death, alleging Krishna failed to check on her husband after receiving her warnings that he might need medical aid.
- Sidney Rasnick stayed at Motel Jesup (owned by Krishna) during a work assignment in Georgia; he had previously interacted with his wife by telephone from his room in the days preceding his death.
- On March 13, Rasnick was found on the motel room floor; an ambulance transported him to a hospital where he died shortly after.
- Autopsy attributed death to untreated coronary artery disease with heart enlargement; a cardiologist opined he would have survived with timely treatment the previous evening.
- Krishna moved for summary judgment arguing it had no duty to investigate or render medical aid based on Rasnick’s requests; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding no legal duty to check on a guest’s health existed under Georgia law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to render aid by innkeeper | Rasnick: innkeeper duty to check on at-risk guests when alerted by family. | Krishna: no legal duty to investigate or render aid when not caused by premises or guest stay. | No duty to check or render aid imposed on innkeeper |
| Adoption of Restatement § 314A in Georgia | Rasnick urges engrafting 314A to create a duty to aid or protect ill or injured guests. | Krishna argues § 314A should not be adopted in Georgia; premises owners owe no such duty. | Georgia declines to adopt § 314A at this time |
| Foreseeability and duty | Rasnick contends notice of potential illness creates duty to act. | Krishna contends foreseeability alone does not create duty; policy considerations limit duty expansion. | Foreseeability did not create a duty to act for innkeeper |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Douglasville v. Queen, 270 Ga. 770 (1999) (duty analysis for premises-related risks)
- CSX Transp. v. Williams, 278 Ga. 888 (2005) (legal duty tailored to controllable consequences)
- Badische Corp. v. Caylor, 257 Ga. 131 (1987) (foreseeability and duty limitations in tort)
- Murray v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 284 Ga.App. 263 (2007) (statutory/policy considerations in duty formation)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (2010) (threshold matter of duty; inapplicability of certain duties)