P (six-year-old boy) and his mother were shopping in D's department store.
P fell and got his fingers caught in D's escalator.
D unreasonably delayed stopping the escalator which caused P's injuries to be aggravated.
P sued D in negligence.
Trial court found for P.
IN Supreme Court reversed, new trial ordered, should be limited to the aggravated injuries.
Does an invitor owe a duty of care to an invitee when the injury resulted from use of an instrumentality under the control of the invitor?
An invitor owes a duty of care to an invitee when the injury resulted from the use of an instrumentality under the control of the invitor.
There is no general duty to go to the rescue of a person who is in peril.
Under some circumstances, considerations may require one to render assistance to another who has been injured even though the injury was not due to negligence on his part and may have been caused by the negligence of the injured person.
There may be a legal obligation to take affirmative steps to rescue a person who is helpless when the one proceeded against is a mster or invitor, or when the injury resulted from use of an instrumentality under the control of the D.
P was an invitee using an instrumentality under the control of D.
The duty in this case arose after the P's initial injury occurred, so liability should be limited to the aggravation of injury.
D cannot be charged with anticipation or prevention but only with failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid aggravation.