declining to impose a duty upon a tennis club to maintain a defibrillator on its premises, principally on the ground that the legislature has carefully regulated the use of such devices without imposing a duty on business operators to maintain such equipment
How later courts described this case
- declining to impose a duty upon a tennis club to maintain a defibrillator on its premises, principally on the ground that the legislature has carefully regulated the use of such devices without imposing a duty on business operators to maintain such equipment
- holding that tennis club owed no duty to tennis club member who suffered heart attack while playing tennis to acquire and maintain a defibrillator on its premises for emergency use
- declining to impose a duty on club to maintain defibrillator on its premises, principally on the ground that legislature carefully regulated use of such devices without imposing a duty on business operators to maintain such equipment
- analyzing the overall public interest in the proposed solution and finding that a tennis club did not owe a duty to acquire and maintain an automated external defibrillator on its premises for emergency use
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice CAPPY,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion to the extent that it holds that we must balance the factors in Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. *591 Cohen, 562 Pa. 547 , 756 A.2d 1166 (2000). After evaluating all five factors, I agree that no duty exists here.