*1 repri- accepted. Voluntary Discipline Panel Review Petition for concur. All the Justices mand. July 11, 2011.
Decided Kellyn McGee, Bar, O. Frederick, Counsel State General Paula J. Georgia. Bar of Bar, State for State Counsel Assistant General HOSPITALITY, INC. et al. v. KRISHNA RASNICK S10G0971. HINES, Justice. Appeals granted in Rasnick certiorari to the Court This Court (2010), Hospitality, Inc., 302 Ga.
v. Krishna concluding Appeals as erred the Court of to consider whether comply with had no the defendant motel matter of law that attempt plaintiffs requests from his a rescue of her husband judgment Finding peril. of the Court of no error Appeals, we affirm. included the Court of The facts as stated (“Rasnick”) 77-year-old
following. Virginia
hus-
her
Rasnick
assignment in
Sidney
on a work
Rasnick,
in Texas. While
band,
lived
Jesup,
stayed
Georgia,
was owned
at the Motel
Mr. Rasnick
(“Krishna”).
Hospitality,
operated
He checked
Inc.
Krishna
days
thereafter
a number
March
and for
into the motel on
reported
day.
spoke
On the
several times
with his wife
to work
lying
housekeeper
morning
Mr. Rasnick
found
13, a motel
of March
housekeeper
get up. room,
his motel
unable
on the floor of
p.m., an
At about 12:30
owner, who called 911.
informed the
nearby hospital,
transported
he
where
Mr.
to a
ambulance
autopsy
he died from a
An
revealed that
time later.
died a short
enlargement
coronary artery disease and
untreated
combination of
degree
cardiologist opined
of medical
to a reasonable
A
of his heart.
certainty
he received
survived had
Mr. Rasnick would have
that
evening
12.
of March
medical treatment on
wrongful
present
Krishna,
action
death
Rasnick filed the
negligence
alleging,
had made numerous
in that Rasnick
alia,
inter
night
telephone
died, and
before her husband
the motel the
calls to
operators
the motel
him,
reach
she alerted
unable to
when
possibility
aid.
in need of medical
her husband was
requests
comply
operators
However, the motel
refused
failure of Krishna’s
him. Rasnick maintained
check on
expressed
a breach of
personnel
amounted to
concern
to heed her
paying guest.1
to render aid to a
summary judgment, arguing,
Krishna
alia,
moved for
inter
impose
investigate
law did not
on it to
Mr. Rasnick’s
condition and render or
if
aid,
summon medical
needed. The trial
granted
summary judgment, determining
court
Krishna’s motion for
legal duty
comply
requests
that Krishna had no
with Rasnick’s
*2
legal duty
check
support
husband,
thus,
on her
and
there was no
sufficient to
liability
negligence.
Appeals
The
affirmed,
Court of
holding
duty
comply
as a matter of law that Krishna had no
requests
attempt
possibly-needed
Rasnick’s
rescue of her
(1).
Hospitality, supra
husband. Rasnick v. Krishna
at 266
negligence
plaintiff
In order to have a viable
action, a
must
satisfy
namely,
duty
tort,
the elements of the
the existence of a
on the
part
duty,
alleged
of the defendant, a breach of that
causation of the
injury,
damages resulting
alleged
duty.
from the
breach of the
(604
822) (2004).
Crane,
John
Jones,
Inc. v.
747,
278 Ga.
751
SE2d
legal duty
obligation
The
is the
to conform to a standard of conduct
protection
under the law for the
of others
unreasonable risks
(296
Bradley
of harm.
Wessner,
Center v.
199,
250 Ga.
200
SE2d
(1982).
legal obligation
complaining party
This
to the
must be found,
injury
observance of which would have averted or avoided the
damage;
plaintiff
the innocence of the
is immaterial to the existence
legal duty
part
plaintiff
on the
of the defendant in that the
will
something
not be entitled to recover unless the defendant did
that it
should
something
done,
not have
i.e.,
action,
or failed to do
pursuant
duty
should
done, i.e.,
an omission,
owed the
plaintiff
(1)
City Douglasville
under the law.
Queen,
v.
But, to Rasnick’s credibly premises be or suit cannot cast as a condition akin damages or leads others OCGA 51-3-1 keeping Where to such an owner premises persons provides: come upon occupier for injuries approaches premises land, caused safe. by express for by his failure any lawful or implied purpose, exercise invitation, he is liable ordinary induces care premises building. any to a hazard like a smoke-filled Because risk or (cid:127)problem stemming from a medical condition unrelated to and not guest’s stay facility caused at the is not internal to the premises guest. but rather internal to the requests explicitly adopt 2. Rasnick next that this Court Section (Second) (1965), 314A of the Restatement of Torts which is entitled “Special Giving Duty Relations Rise to to Aid Protect,” provides:
(1) duty passengers A common carrier is under a to its to take reasonable action
(a) physical them from unreasonable risk of harm, and
(b) give them first aid after it knows or has reason to they injured, know that they are ill or and to care for them until can be cared for others.
(2) An guests. is under a similar to his (3) possessor open A public of land who holds it public under a similar to members of the who enter in response to his invitation. (4) required by One who is law to take or who volun- tarily custody takes the of another under circumstances deprive such opportunities as to the other of his normal protection is under a similar to the other. (Emphasis supplied.) support engrafting Section 314A law, into
cites
caselaw other states which have considered the
set out in
provision.
distinguishable
Restatement
But, the cited cases are
They
from the circumstances in this case.
involve situations in which
knowledge
the owner or
that its invitee
danger
in was
physical peril;
imminent
because of observation of the
investigation
inquiry
no manner
e.g.,
See,
at issue.
Baker v.
(Ind.
Properties,
Fenneman & Brown
793 NE2d Ct.
*4
(restaurant
duty
had a
reasonable assistance to customer
paying
who while
began
cashier fell to floor, lost consciousness and
having convulsions);
(Md.
Corp.
Southland
v. Griffith,
The seq. Chapter et These 43-21-1 21 Title 43. See OCGA Article of innkeepers impose upon and do to rescue the do not statutes safety personal innkeeper’s of its expand the of care for not required guests beyond caselaw. General in our State’s “investigate” innkeepers Assembly given the could arguments guest, so. And sound it chose not to do but “check on” that choice. be made for can any innkeeper require manner monitor that an
To guest, problems are possible not caused which are of a health only facility, stay as a unwarranted is not at the unrelated practicality. fact and as a matter of but unworkable matter of law including poten- Pretermitting significant policy considerations industry, impact threshold issues would on the tial fiscal include hotel/motel possible involving scope questions inquiry type triggering should cause the would or What events. inquire guest’s and from whom? state of health into the family inquiry triggering member or from a have to be Would colleague anyone about ostensible concern a friend or would the questions guest’s crucial become suffice? Such health situation privacy guest’s implicating are extant. issues because that Krishna Rasnick’s claim noted The Court guest may suggesting need information “reasonable foreseeability, thereby raising but the matter assistance,” accurately not mandate circumstance does that such concluded Transp. concepts. Williams, expansion See CSX tort of traditional (2005); Caylor, Corp. v. Badische 888, 890 278 Ga. 257 Ga. Transp., (1987); Dept. Murray v. Ga. legal duty supra the notion of so because at 272 This is wrongs “consequences limited to are so that the must be tailored Transp. degree.” While Williams, at 890. CSX a controllable *5 570 morality humanity certainly
issues and are raised the circum- obligation compel case, stances this a moral or humane does not legal duty, portends liability. of a existence breach of (659 612) App. 510, 514, Lucas v. 289 n. 14 Cranshaw, See Ga. SE2d (635 (2008); (2006). Posig, App. 808, 280 810 McGarrah v. Ga. SE2d epitomization To conclude be an otherwise this case would adage light legislative “bad facts make bad law.” of a recognition policy reluctance to do so and in of clear considerations of judicially engraft pragmatism, and to we decline into the caselaw of duty upon innkeepers investigate State, this the additional to guests they on their are in need, check to determine if as urged by holding Rasnick. case, This is sufficient to decide this and any duty we thus, need not determine now whether to render (2) may summon medical aid as be set forth Section 314A should adopted Georgia. be judgment of the Court of stands. Judgment except concur, All Hunstein, the Justices affirmed. Carley, J., J., Benham, J.,
C. P. and who dissent. Presiding dissenting. Justice,
CAKLEY,
innkeepers
hardly
The duties of
are
limited to their duties with
guests’
§
respect
property pursuant
seq.
to their
et
OCGA 43-21-1
statutory
keep
approaches
their
or to
and
reasonably
§
guests.
Properties
safe for
51-3-1;
their
See OCGA
Motel
(1) (436
196) (1993).
Miller,
v.
263
484,
Ga.
485
SE2d
“It is the
only
guest
patron
of an
not
furnish his
with shelter
ordinary
protect
and comforts but also to exercise
care to
him from
danger. [Cit.]”
Candace, Inc.,
Newton v.
SE2d
(1956).
duty widely recognized
This common-law
is
in other
jurisdictions.
Barry
Liability
1 J.D. &
Lindahl,
Lee
Modern Tort Law:
(2d ed.);
§
Litigation
Eating
Inns, Hotels,
3:22
43A CJS
§
Motels,
32;
Hotels,
40A
69;
Places
Estate Hutchins v.
AmJur2d
and Restaurants
Operating L.P.,
2365590,
6Motel
2006 WL
at *2
(E.D.
August
(applying
quoting
Ark.
law,
Arkansas
Catlett
(Ark. 1991)).
Stewart,
804 SW2d
development
Moreover,
allows further
of the common
recognize
Supreme
law, as we
Court Rule 34
Court
Thus, this
previously adopted portions
has
of the Second Restatement
Torts.
(1)
Acquisition Corp.,
Seidman
BDO
v. Mindis
In the evidence motion Estate of girlfriend going judgment meet was showed that the deceased’s evening phone. him one but not reach on the him at a hotel late could security only partially opened latch, a room because of She his door normally, passed breathing and drunk, him but she eventu- saw ally out asleep room awoke, in her she returned to the fell car. When she position respond. and did not She door, where he was the same something wrong. was She the clerk to call 911 because asked desk get get not into the deceased’s room or the clerk that she could told him to any employee telephone, but did not tell motel the she answer position long lying in the same the deceased had been how any reasonably clerk con- other information from which the could emergency. Thus, that in medical the clude the deceased was a nothing contended that the record established defendant motel danger and was immediate that it was on notice that the deceased the Nevertheless, the because clerk called that time was of essence. manager at and did first, who did not arrive for least 30 minutes the not call 911 until opened door,
he room the federal district had “genuine Motel of material fact as to whether the court found issues jury employee negligent The a in a manner. evidence raises 6 question acted reasonably person a act under the as to how careful would Operating L.P., Estate Hutchins v. Motel circumstances.” at *3. presents compelling significantly case The here more record summary judgment. deposition, her Rasnick Ms. for denial of recently 77-year-old from her husband had recovered testified that suffering prostate from a bad cold when he came cancer, was taking pressure, high Georgia, and blood was was on medication containing cough suppressant her Rasnick and codeine. Ms. pattern telephone regular calls. He would husband established during day work, from and call his motel room call her she would day day Mr. after the work had ended. On the Rasnick’s soon p.m. p.m. the motel at and 7:36 death, Ms. called 6:51 and room, connected with but he did not answer. At asked be 7:55 plant p.m., she called the Mr. and was where Rasnick worked again informed that he had left two hours earlier. She tried the motel immediately and man who answered she informed the that lived very Texas, she was about he on husband, that worried her that was and she medication, needed someone check on him. The operator disturbing hung up her she and told was her husband p.m., again, operator her. At Ms. Rasnick called on 8:16 a female manager shortly told her that the would be back her connected room, to Mr. Rasnick’s where there was still no When Ms. answer. p.m., operator Rasnick called at asked male if 8:30 he had operator found out about her husband. The ranted that her husband may working resting disturbing be overtime and that she Mr. operator Rasnick. told She that she had checked his office working knowing he not Furthermore, and was did overtime. that he night, gone not drive he at she denied that out. The told hung up again. her to dial the room number made five more on Ms. Rasnick evening, receiving calls to motel each time only response an automated from the motel switchboard. question protect guests of a violation *7 danger, innkeeper’s question negli like duties, other “‘“is a of gence and this court is bound the rule that such matters for are (Cit.)”’” jury except plain, palpable indisputable in the cases. App. Co., Robinson WesternIntl. Hotels 170 813 Ga. 235) (1984). Operating Corp. SE2d 246 See also Colt Indus. Coleman, (272 (1980); AmJur2d, Ga. SE2d 40A at (“Unless §119 only single [cit.] conclusion, evidence allows it is jury proprietor for the to determine whether ... of a hotel . . . ordinary protection has exercised or reasonable care for the [Cits.]”). guests frequently “[o]ne .... This is of the most cited propositions Georgia jurisprudence in all of . . . .” Charles R. Adams (2010-2011 ed.). § III, Ga. Law 3-2 Torts evidence this case placed shows that the defendant motel on notice of Mr. Rasnick’s likely presence medication, his in the room hotel due his earlier departure respond phone his work, calls, failure great jury wife’s concern. Under evidence, this could find that the thereby injured, motel had reason to know that Mr. Rasnick illwas triggering danger. my opinion, its him from further erroneously summary granted judgment, trial therefore, the court genuine since are there issues of material fact as to whether the motel exercised under reasonable care the circumstances. Estate of supra. Operating Accordingly, respectfully L.P., Hutchins v.Motel 6 I judgment. Appeals’ I further of the Court to the affirmance dissent gap Assembly urge the common law close the General unnecessary opinion’s majority on resulting limitation from the applica- rejection inexplicable its duties of an case. tion 314A this and Justice Justice Hunstein
I am authorized to state Chief join in this dissent. Benham July 5, 2011 Decided July 21, 2011. denied
Reconsideration appellants. Poe,M. for James Ruppersburg, Copeland Hugh Stair, David
Carlock, M. F. & appellee. Root, for McGEE. HICKS et al. v.
S10G1220.
HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice. Appeals granted certiorari to consider whether the Court We correctly appellants Blanton, Hicks found that Juanita and Geneva respective Superior capacities as Clerk of the their individual County employee office, Court of Fulton entitled to 42-5-50 and an were not immunity regard official to OCGA their actions (a) notify (requiring clerk of court to the commis Department of a within sioner of the of Corrections sentence sentence), working days following receipt as to the suit brought against by appellee prisoner McGee, them Calvin who was past appellants’ date due to incarcerated months his release comply v. Hicks, the statute. See McGee failure 130) (2010) (“Hicks IF’).1 follow, For the reasons that holding appellants were we affirm the of the Court of immunity although disapprove we that court’s not entitled official upon holding the law of the case to the extent that was based *8 doctrine. judge case of
The record reveals that trial the criminal signed one-page Calvin document “State of McGee” changed entitled “amended order” that McGee’s sentence against appellants capacities claims were earlier dismissed on McGee’s their official McGee, sovereign immunity. See Hicks basis of