holding, “Duty, in any given situation, is predicated on the relationship existing between the parties at the relevant time, ... and necessarily requires some degree of knowledge.” (citations omitted)
How later courts described this case
- holding, “Duty, in any given situation, is predicated on the relationship existing between the parties at the relevant time, ... and necessarily requires some degree of knowledge.” (citations omitted)
- recognizing Section 323 as an accurate statement of the law of negligence in Pennsylvania
- predicating duty on relationship between parties at relevant time, which necessarily requires some degree of knowledge
- limiting the extent of defendant-paramedics duty under Section 323 to the scope of their undertaking
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. While I agree that the issue in this case is whether defendants owed a duty of care to decedent (Major-' *645 ity Opinion, n. 4), I disagree that a court may conclude, as a matter of law, that there was no duty owed. As the majority indicates, Section 323(a) of the Restatement of Torts Second provides:
One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other’s person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking if
(a) his failure to exercise care increases the risk of harm ...
It is a jury question whether the paramedics failed to exercise care in this case. While the paramedics were not party to the discussions concerning decedent’s medical condition and while inter-hospital transfers were “relatively” routine “even after an initial emergency intake,” it is a question for the jury whether it was reasonable for the paramedics not to have made an inquiry as to the reason for the hospital’s request that they transfer this particular patient.
In fact, since the record indicates that inter-hospital transfers after an initial emergency intake were usually handled by private companies, one must wonder why the paramedics would not have been alerted to at least question whether this request was an emergency, since otherwise, it presumably would have been handled by a private company.
In addition, I agree with the dissenting opinion in the Superior Court that in view of the paramedic supervisor’s testimony that seriousness of the patient’s condition was a factqr he would have taken into consideration in granting or denying the request for transfer, it is at least a jury question as to whether the supervisor should have made an inquiry about patient’s condition and whether the paramedics should have determined it. Thus, since this case presents a jury question as to duty of care, I would reverse the *646 Superior Court’s order affirming the trial court’s refusal to take off the compulsory nonsuit.
Joined by ROBERTS, C.J., and LARSEN, J.