Applebaum v. Nemon
Texas Court of Appeals
678 S.W.2d 533 (1984)
- Written by Meagan Anglin, JD
Facts
David and Suzanne Nemon (plaintiffs) dropped off their two-year-old son, Howard, at a children’s day-care center staffed in part by Sanford and Marilyn Applebaum, Noreen DeBoy, and Jackie Jones (defendants). While the children were playing outside, Jones instructed Howard to line up to return inside. When Howard did not respond, Jones went over to him on the playground, found him unconscious, and summoned Sanford, who then called for an ambulance. Sanford rendered mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to Howard for several minutes and then called the fire department because the ambulance had not yet arrived. Eventually, the ambulance arrived and transported Howard to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Howard’s parents brought suit against the day care and its employees for the wrongful death of their son, arguing in part that the day care should have trained its employees in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The jury issued a special verdict, failing to find that Howard was injured on the playground, finding that the day care failed to provide adequate life-saving aid to Howard, and finding that the day care’s failure to teach its employees proper emergency measures was negligent and proximately caused Howard’s death. The day care appealed, arguing that the day care did not owe a duty to provide sufficient life-saving aid to Howard or instruct its employees in emergency procedures.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.