Facts
- Corinne Marsalis was shopping in Shelby P. La Salle’s grocery store when a Siamese cat (kept as the pet of La Salle’s minor son) bit or scratched her.
- Concerned about rabies, James R. Marsalis asked La Salle to confine the cat for 14 days for observation so Mrs. Marsalis could avoid unnecessary rabies prophylaxis.
- The trial court credited plaintiffs’ testimony that La Salle agreed to lock up and observe the cat for the requested period; La Salle denied making that promise.
- La Salle made no meaningful effort to secure the cat, and within several days it escaped and remained missing for about a month.
- Because the cat could not be observed, Mrs. Marsalis underwent a series of rabies injections and suffered complications, including an adverse reaction requiring hospitalization.
- When the cat later returned, it showed no signs of rabies.
- The trial court awarded Mrs. Marsalis $3,000 for injuries and Mr. Marsalis about $350 for medical expenses; La Salle appealed.
Issues
- Whether a person who voluntarily agrees to take a precautionary action for another’s protection assumes a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in performing that undertaking.
- Whether La Salle’s failure to use reasonable care to confine the cat was a proximate cause of injuries resulting from rabies treatment undertaken after the cat escaped.
Decision
- The court affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs.
- The court held that even if La Salle initially had no obligation to confine the cat, his agreement to do so created a duty to use reasonable care in carrying out the undertaking.
- The court found La Salle breached that duty by failing to take reasonable steps to keep the cat secured and observed.
- The court held the cat’s escape foreseeably led to Mrs. Marsalis’s decision to undergo rabies prophylaxis, making La Salle’s negligence a proximate cause of her treatment-related injuries.
- The damages awards were upheld as supported by the evidence.
Legal Principles
- A defendant who voluntarily undertakes to render aid or take protective measures for another must exercise reasonable care in performing the undertaking.
- Liability may attach for harms proximately caused by negligent performance of an assumed undertaking, including foreseeable medical treatment undertaken because the defendant’s negligence prevents risk assessment.
- Negligence liability for a voluntarily assumed duty does not depend on proof that an animal had known vicious propensities when the duty arises from the undertaking rather than from keeping a dangerous animal.
Conclusion
By agreeing to confine and observe the cat to allow rabies risk evaluation, La Salle assumed a duty to act with reasonable care; his failure to secure the cat, leading to its disappearance, foreseeably caused Mrs. Marsalis to undergo rabies treatment and suffer compensable injuries, warranting affirmance of the plaintiffs’ judgment.