Moore v. Shah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyRescue doctrineForeseeabilityMedical malpracticedutyforeseeability

Facts

The complaint alleged that defendant physician negligently diagnosed and treated the father's condition, causing the father's kidney failure and making a later kidney transplant necessary. Plaintiff Marvin Richard Moore, the father's son, donated a kidney to his father and sought to recover from the physician for injuries arising from that donation. The son was never defendant's patient. His decision to donate was deliberate and reflective, not an emergency response, and it occurred after defendant's alleged negligent acts.

Issue

Whether a kidney donor has a cause of action against a physician who allegedly negligently treated the donee patient, where the donor was not the physician's patient and donated a kidney in a deliberate, nonemergency act after the alleged negligence. More specifically, the question was whether foreseeability or the rescue doctrine could create a duty from the physician to the donor.

Rule

A negligence claim requires a duty owed to the plaintiff, breach, and proximate cause. Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to create a duty where none previously existed, especially where doing so would expose a physician to potentially limitless liability to nonpatients outside any manageable zone of danger. The rescue doctrine extends liability to rescuers only within its recognized limits, and it does not create a duty to a nonpatient organ donor whose aid was deliberate, nonemergency, and undertaken after the defendant's alleged negligent acts.

🔒

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 Albany, Dr. Nisha Verma allegedly mismanaged Paul Darden's diabetes, and Paul later developed kidney failure. Six months afterward, Paul's daughter, Elena Darden, voluntarily donated one of her kidneys to him and suffered surgical complications.

If Elena sues Dr. Verma in negligence for her donation-related injuries, what is the strongest basis for dismissing her claim?

Explanation. Negligence requires a duty owed to the plaintiff. Under the majority opinion, a physician does not owe a duty to a nonpatient organ donor merely because it may be foreseeable that a relative will donate. The court rejected foreseeability as the sole basis for creating a new duty and emphasized limiting liability to manageable bounds.