Zalak v. Carroll
Cases that cite this one
31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Kellermann v. McDonough (Va. 2009)
- Kellermann v. McDonough (Va. 2009)
- Williams v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)
- Standifer v. Pate (Ala. 1973)
- Babula v. Robertson (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)
- Mayberry v. Pryor (Mich. 1985)
- Andrews v. County of Otsego (New York Supreme Court 1982)
- Mogan v. Dame Russell Physical Therapy, PLLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Alotta v. Diaz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Nyhus v. Valentino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Entler v. Koch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Atehortua v. Lewin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- McCabe v. Dutchess County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Williams, Sharan Ann (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)
- Moreno v. Weiner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Brennan v. Sinski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Jacobs v. Newton (Civil Court of the City of New York 2003)
- Sheila C. v. Povich (New York Supreme Court 2003)
- Appell v. Mandel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- ZZ. v. Blasen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Diamond-Fisher v. Greto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Pitkewicz v. Kane (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Pitkewicz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Adolph E. v. Lori M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Costello v. Marchese (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum: Defendants had undertaken to care for the four-year-old plaintiff during periods in which her mother worked. Although when the arrangement for the daily care of the child began defendants were compensated by the mother, no payments were being made at the time of infant plaintiff’s injury because of a prior reduction in the mother’s earnings. Even without compensation, when defendants undertook to control a young child and provide care for her, they became responsible for her injury through their negligence (Miller v. International Harvester Co., 193 App. Div. 258; Wallace v. Casey Co., 132 App. Div. 35; Wittenberg v. Seitz, 8 App. Div. 439; Gregaydis v. Watervliet Civic Chest, 14 A D 2d 623; Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N. Y. 236). Thus defendants’ duty to use reasonable care to protect the infant was not measured by what their duty would have been to a social guest or a mere licensee. They were required to use reasonable care to protect the infant plaintiff from injury. The decision of the trial court on the question of their negligence is supported by the weight of evidence.
Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Burke and Bergan concur in Memorandum; Judges Van Voorhis and Scileppi dissent and vote to affirm.
Order reversed and judgment of the Supreme Court reinstated, with costs to plaintiff in this court and in the Appellate Division in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.