|
|
The Nevada Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has drawn a line in the sands of negligence law by upholding a lower courts granting of summary judgment against a widow in a wrongful death action. The holding of this case should not be considered as a reversal of a long standing policy of the court in not granting summary judgments in cases involving a defendants breach of duty in a negligence action, but rather for the type of facts necessary for the Court to seriously consider summary adjudication. In this case, a guest at the Carson Street Café, a restaurant located within the Golden Nugget Hotel, was having dinner when he suddenly appeared nauseated and, according to his companion, seemed to be “getting sick.” He vomited in his lap and on the floor, slumped over in his chair, and closed his eyes. Security and a waitress were summoned. Security immediately checked his vital signs and at no time observed him choking or coughing or exhibiting other signs that an object was obstructing his air passages. Despite their efforts his pulse began to slow and the hotel dispatcher was contacted and an ambulance summoned. While waiting for the ambulance to arrive, an oxygen tank was secured, security laid the man on the floor and began CPR. Unfortunately, the paramedics were unable to resuscitate the man and he passed away in a hospital emergency room. The cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to an upper airway occlusion caused by food material. It was found that the man’s blood alcohol content was determined to be .32. The examining doctor testified that this type of event is not uncommon in a severely intoxicated individual. The Court first examined whether a duty to act existed under the facts of the case. Noting that, in Nevada, strangers are generally under no duty to aid those in peril, the Nevada common law has evolved to create duties where a special relationship exists between the parties, such as teacher/student, employer/employee. The court then found, citing law from other jurisdictions, that such a special relationship exists between a restauranteur and his patrons. Having found that a legal duty existed, the Court’s next inquiry was to determine whether the hotel took reasonably affirmative steps to aid its patron. Noting that Nevada had not yet spoken on the issue, the Court examined appellate decisions in Florida, California, Iowa and Wyoming, jurisdictions whose case law contained authority under factual situations similar to the one before the Nevada Court. In citing from a Florida case, Coccarello v. Roundtable of Coral Gables Inc. 421 S2d 194 (1982) the Court noted as follows: “A proprietor of a public place has a duty only to take reasonable action to give or secure first aid after he knows that a patron is ill or injured; he is not required to take any action beyond that which is reasonable under the circumstances. The action taken by the proprietor under the circumstances herein (summoning a medical rescue team within 5 minutes of discovering the patron was choking) was reasonable.” The Nevada Supreme Court examined the defendant’s employees actions, which included examining and assessing the patron’s condition, monitoring the condition and summoning professional aid upon realizing the patron’s condition was deteriorating. Based upon its review of precedent from other jurisdictions, the Nevada Supreme Court concluded, as a matter of law, that the hotel employees did not breach their duty to take reasonable affirmative steps to aid this patron. Accordingly the Court upheld the lower court’s determination granting the hotel summary judgment. The case was heard and decided by a three judge panel consisting of Justices Shearing, Leavitt and Agosti.
|
|
