In mid-Aрril of 1976, appellant’s husband David Mixon informed his shift manager at Dobbs House, Paul Braley, that his wife was pregnant and he might have to leave on a moment’s notice if she called to take her to the hosрital. Mixon’s job was loading food and clearing planes which Dobbs Houses catered for Delta Air Linеs, and he had no access to a telephone. Braley indicated his agreement to relаy the message. In late May Mixon again told Braley that he would definitely be getting a call any *482 day from his wifе, that he would need immediate notification of such call, and Braley acknowledged and agrеed to the request.
On June 7 the appellant Barbara Mixon called the Dobbs House and spoke to the timekeeper Debra Taylor, telling her she had an emergency message for her husband. Ms. Taylor told Mrs. Mixon she would give him the message, and did in fact relay it to Paul Braley. Thirty minutes later Mrs. Mixon called back and asked whether the message had been delivered because her husband, who was ten minutes drivе away, had not arrived and she was in labor. Ms. Taylor again relayed the message, this time to Lenny Samрle, a supervisor. Mrs. Mixon called a third time, crying and desperate, and was told her husband had been given the message and was on his way home. However, although Braley had gotten the message he had fаiled to deliver it even though he knew that Mixon was in the kitchen area and could easily have personally delivered it or had it announced over the intercom. Mixon did not receive the messagе until his shift ended and Ms. Taylor asked him if he had gotten it. By the time he arrived home his wife had already given birth to a baby girl, all alone, unassisted and unmedicated, experiencing total fear and excruciating pаin.
Barbara Mixon sued for general damages for the negligence of Dobbs Houses’ employees in failing to deliver the emergency message. Dobbs Houses filed a motion for summary judgment, relying primarily on thе position that they owed no duty to the appellant, which the trial court granted. We concludе that a jury issue was presented, and reverse.
We cannot agree with the basic premise of Dоbbs Houses’ sole defense — that there was no relationship contractual or otherwise between itself and Mrs. Mixon, and accordingly no duty owed by it to her.
"Private duties may arise from statute or flow from relations created by contract, express or implied. The violation of any such specifiс duty, accompanied with damage, shall give a right of action.” Code § 105-104. "A charge of negligencе carries with it an imputation of knowledge or foresight in the breach of duty charged as distinguished from a mеre breach of contract.
Howard v.
*483
Jacobs’ Pharmacy Co.,
" 'In order for a party to be liable as for negligence, it is not necessary that he should have been able to anticipate the particular consequences which ensued. It is sufficient, if in ordinary prudence he might have foreseen that some injury would result from his аct or omission, or that consequences of a generally injurious nature might result.’
Williams v. Grier,
"One who, by a gratuitous promise or other conduct which he should realize will cause another rеasonably to rely upon the performance of definite acts of service by him as the other’s agent, causes the other to refrain from having such acts done by other available means is subject to a duty to use care to perform such service or, while other means are available, to give notice that he will not perform.” Restatement (Second) of Agency § 378 (1958);
Simmerson v. Blanks,
In the instant case, even though the promises made by Braley and Ms. Taylor to deliver Mrs. Mixon’s message to her husband may have been gratuitous, once they were undertaken the duty arose to perform under the requisite
*484
standard of care.
Shirley Cloak & Dress Co. v. Arnold,
Judgment reversed.