Dutt v. Mannar & Co.
Decision Date | 13 March 2020 |
Docket Number | A19A2130 |
Citation | 841 S.E.2d 132,354 Ga.App. 565 |
Parties | DUTT v. MANNAR AND COMPANY, LLC. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
John David Hadden, Lloyd W. Hoffspiegel, Bret S. Moore, Alexander S. Hoffspiegel, Atlanta, for Appellant.
Sabrina Lynn Atkins, Atlanta, Michael H. Schroder, Emily Ballard Marshall, for Appellee.
This appeal contests the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a negligence action. Because the trial court correctly found that the plaintiff had failed to show a duty upon which liability could be based, we affirm.
"On appeal from a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review, viewing the evidence in the record and all inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Tyner v. Matta-Troncoso , 305 Ga. 480, 481 (1), 826 S.E.2d 100 (2019).
So viewed, the evidence shows that on May 10, 2017, Sanjib Dutt participated in a free one-hour high intensity training class at RedKore Fitness in Johns Creek, Georgia. After the class, Dutt began to experience chest pain, told the trainer who had led the class about the pain, and asked him to call 911. The trainer told Dutt that he was having muscle cramps and massaged his chest. Dutt eventually began to feel better, did not think he needed to call 911 at that point, and drove himself home. Once Dutt got home, the chest pain returned and he took ibuprofen
. The pain did not subside, so Dutt put an ice pack on his chest and then switched to a heating pad. The pain spread from his chest to his shoulder, so Dutt decided to drive to the hospital. At the hospital, emergency room staff diagnosed Dutt with a heart attack, discovered a blocked artery, and treated him for the blockage.
Dutt sued Mannar and Company, LLC d/b/a RedKore Fitness, claiming that its trainer had been negligent in failing to call 911. Mannar filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Dutt could not prove the breach of any duty. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding that Dutt had failed to show a legal duty owed to him by the defendant. Dutt appeals.
Dutt claims that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there is a question of fact as to whether Mannar’s trainer had a duty to call 911. We disagree.
The essential elements of a negligence claim are the existence of a legal duty; breach of that duty; a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury; and damages. Thus, the threshold issue in a negligence action is whether and to what extent the defendant owes a legal duty to the plaintiff. This issue is a question of law. A legal duty sufficient to support liability in negligence is either a duty imposed by a valid statutory enactment of the legislature or a duty imposed by a recognized common law principle declared in the reported decisions of our appellate courts. In the absence of a legally cognizable duty, there can be no fault or negligence.
Sheaffer v. Marriott International , 349 Ga. App. 338, 340 (1), 826 S.E.2d 185 (2019) (citations and punctuation omitted).
Dutt has not pointed to any statutory enactment imposing a duty on the trainer to call 911; rather, he argues that the trainer breached a common law duty to call 911 and that the resulting delay in medical treatment caused damage to Dutt’s heart. However, Dutt has identified no Boller v. Robert W. Woodruff Arts Center , 311 Ga. App. 693, 696 (1) (a), 716 S.E.2d 713 (2011) ( ). See also Rasnick v. Krishna Hospitality , 289 Ga. 565, 713 S.E.2d 835 (2011) ( ). As Dutt does not claim, and has cited no evidence showing, that the trainer caused him to have a heart attack, the trainer was under no duty to help rescue Dutt by calling 911 on his behalf. See Sheaffer , supra at 341-342 (1), 826 S.E.2d 185 ( ).
Nevertheless, Dutt contends that Mannar is liable for the trainer’s negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking.
Under this principle, one who undertakes to do an act or perform a service for another has the duty to exercise care, and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. 3M
...by a recognized common law principle declared in the reported decisions of [Georgia] appellate courts." Dutt v. Mannar & Co., LLC , 354 Ga.App. 565, 841 S.E.2d 132, 134 (2020), cert. denied (Nov. 2, 2020); Rasnick , 713 S.E.2d at 837. "In the absence of a legally cognizable duty, there can ......
-
Arnold v. Word
...employee for any violation of the rights of a resident granted under this article." OCGA § 31-8-136 (a).13 See Dutt v. Mannar & Co. , 354 Ga. App. 565, 566, 841 S.E.2d 132 (2020) ("In the absence of a legally cognizable duty, there can be no fault or negligence."), quoting Sheaffer v. Marri......
- Brown v. State
-
Browman v. Kendall Patient Recovery U.S., LLC
...or . . . imposed by a recognized common law principle declared in the reported decisions of [Georgia's] appellate courts." Dutt, 841 S.E.2d at 134. Moreover, cited cases do not stand for exactly the proposition she claims. The cases hold regulatory compliance does not necessarily show a def......