Mixon v. Dobbs House, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1979 · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyUndertakinggratuitous promiseundertakingrelianceduty of care

Facts

David Mixon told his shift manager, Paul Braley, in April and again in late May 1976 that his pregnant wife might call at any time and that he needed immediate notice because he had no access to a telephone while working. Braley agreed to relay such a message. On June 7, Barbara Mixon called Dobbs House three times while in labor, and timekeeper Debra Taylor promised to give the emergency message to her husband, relaying it to Braley and then to another supervisor. Although Braley received the message and could have easily delivered it or had it announced, David Mixon did not get the message until his shift ended, and Barbara Mixon gave birth alone, unassisted, unmedicated, and in extreme pain and fear.

Issue

Whether Dobbs House owed Barbara Mixon a duty of care where its employees gratuitously undertook to relay her emergency message to her husband and she relied on that undertaking. Also, whether the evidence created a jury issue on negligence sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Rule

One who, by a gratuitous promise or other conduct, should realize that another will reasonably rely on the performance of definite acts of service and thereby causes that person to refrain from using other available means, is under a duty to use care in performing the service or, while other means remain available, to give notice that the service will not be performed. In negligence, it is enough that some injury or generally injurious consequences were reasonably foreseeable, and foreseeability is generally a jury question.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Elena Ruiz called Harbor View Fabrication to tell her brother Mateo that their father had collapsed and Mateo needed to come home immediately. The floor supervisor said, "I'll get him right now," and Elena stopped trying to reach Mateo through nearby relatives. The supervisor then set the note aside, and Mateo did not learn of the emergency until hours later.

If Mateo's father sues the fabrication company for negligence based on the delayed message, what is the strongest argument that the company owed a duty?

Explanation. The governing rule is that one who, by a gratuitous promise or other conduct, should realize another will reasonably rely on the performance of definite acts of service and thereby refrain from using other available means, has a duty to use care in performing that service or to give notice while alternatives remain available. A contract is not required. Here, the supervisor expressly undertook to relay an urgent message, and reliance was foreseeable. (Derived from Mixon v. Dobbs House, Inc. (n.d.).)