Court Opinion

ID: 9610154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:37:13.346004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:17.444110
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting, with whom URBIGKIT, Chief Justice, joins.
My problem is with the following instruction:
“A restaurant whose employees are reasonably on notice that a customer is in distress and in need of emergency medical attention has a legal duty to come to the assistance of that customer. However, a restaurant does not have a duty to provide medical training to its food service personnel, or medical rescue services to its customers who become ill or injured through no act or omission of the restaurant or its employees. A restaurant in these circumstances meets its legal duty to a customer in distress when it summons medical assistance within a reasonable time.”
This instruction, which purports to set forth a restaurant owner’s duty, is a poor statement of law because of the inclusion of the last sentence, “A restaurant in these circumstances meets its legal duty to a customer in distress when it summons medical assistance within a reasonable time.” (emphasis added) The sentence is argumentative, confusing, and is tantamount to a directed verdict for defendant. It is never proper for an instruction on the law to inform a jury that a party has or has not “met” its duty. See Bush v. Jackson, 191 Colo. 249, 552 P.2d 509 (1976) and Durrant v. Pelton, 16 Utah 2d 7, 394 P.2d 879 (1964); cf. Cervelli v. Graves, 661 P.2d 1032 (Wyo.1983). The court’s comment conveys to the jury the idea that the court has concluded that defendant met (satisfied) its legal duty. Jurors properly give considerable weight to comments and instructions from the judge — who is viewed as impartial and unbiased. This type of statement in an instruction on the law should, thus, be assiduously avoided.
If the above statement must be included in the instruction, then to provide balance and be fair to plaintiff the court should also add:
“On the other hand, if the restaurant employees failed reasonably to notice that the customer was in distress or to come to his assistance or to summon medical assistance within a reasonable time, then the restaurant has failed to meet the duty imposed upon it by law and your verdict should be for the plaintiff.”
Neither of these are statements of law. Both are argument and should not be part of an instruction. It is enough to instruct the jury on the law — describe the duty imposed and stop without suggesting to the jury that either party has or has not “[met] its legal duty” in the case before the jury.
I am troubled also by the statement that trained restaurant personnel may choose whether to administer CPR or not in any given situation and that, as the court states in its opinion, a “business-invitor’s employees remain lay persons and cannot be compelled to perform first aid against their better judgment.” I am not sure what is meant by this statement, but assume that negligence in the exercise of better judgment will result in restaurant liability. If the assumption is correct, I am in agreement with the sentence in the opinion.
A lay person, trained in first aid — CPR— traveling down the highway who comes *307upon an accident has no legal duty to stop and help injured persons even though he may be able to help. Restatement, Second, Torts § 314, comment c (1965). He can travel on, leaving the injured to bleed and die. At most, there may be a moral obligation to stop and give assistance. On the other hand, an innkeeper who invites guests to his place of business which he operates for a profit may not refuse to give assistance to his patrons as is within his ability to provide. Restatement, Second, Torts § 314A comment f and see illustrations 1 and 5. Thus, if the innkeeper has an employee trained in CPR, there is a duty “to come to the assistance of that customer” as stated in the above instruction. Said another way, the business proprietor is not a stranger who can stand idly by, refuse to provide assistance that is available, and let his customer die. Personal Representative of Starling’s Estate v. Fisherman’s Pier, Inc., 401 So.2d 1136, 1137 (Fla.App.1981) and Hovermale v. Berkeley Springs Moose Lodge No. 1483, 165 W.Va. 689, 271 S.E.2d 335, 338 (1980). So too if a major resort hotel or casino carries a doctor on its staff, it may not refuse reasonable medical assistance to patrons in distress. Cf. Stahlin v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 484 F.2d 580, 583 (7th Cir.1973). In short, I would hold that a business proprietor must exercise reasonable care in serving its patrons and when in the exercise of that reasonable care the proprietor knows or reasonably ought to know that a customer is in distress and in need of assistance, the proprietor must come to the assistance of the customer and provide such assistance, aid and help as is within his present ability to provide.