Wolf v. City of New York, 39 N.Y.2d 560 (1976)

When a person voluntarily assumes a duty, they must perform it with reasonable care and are liable for negligence if their actions create a foreseeable risk of harm.

Summary

Richard Wolf, a volunteer firefighter from New Jersey, frequently visited a New York City firehouse to gain experience. He was allowed to join Engine Company 58 and Ladder Companies 26-1 and 26-2 at fire scenes. On one occasion, at a fire, an acting lieutenant directed Wolf, who was inexperienced with the building type, to assist on the roof. Subsequently, the lieutenant ordered Wolf off the roof, pointing in a direction. While following these directions, Wolf fell into an air shaft and was seriously injured. The New York Court of Appeals held that the city could be liable for negligence because the lieutenant assumed a duty to Wolf when directing him and failed to exercise reasonable care, creating a foreseeable risk.

Facts

Richard Wolf, a New Jersey volunteer firefighter, sought experience with a busy New York City firehouse. He frequented the firehouse and was permitted to ride along to fires. On August 2, 1969, Wolf assisted Ladder 26-2 at a fire, carrying tools to the roof upon request. An acting lieutenant directed Wolf to help tear apart the roof and later ordered him off the roof, pointing in a specific direction. While following these directions, Wolf fell into an unmarked air shaft and sustained serious injuries.

Procedural History

Wolf sued the City of New York for negligence in the Civil Court of New York City. A jury found in favor of Wolf, and an interlocutory judgment was entered against the city. The Appellate Term and Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the City of New York, through its acting lieutenant, owed a duty of care to Wolf, a volunteer assisting at a fire scene, after the lieutenant assumed direction over Wolf’s actions?
2. Whether Wolf was contributorily negligent or assumed the risk as a matter of law?

Holding

1. Yes, because when the acting lieutenant directed Wolf on the roof, he assumed a duty to exercise reasonable care in directing him safely, considering Wolf’s inexperience with the building type.
2. No, because the jury could reasonably find that Wolf did not know of the air shaft and had a right to rely on the lieutenant’s directions, and that Wolf did not fully perceive the risks involved.

Court’s Reasoning

The court relied on the principle that when a person voluntarily assumes a duty, they must perform it carefully. The court stated that, “Where a person voluntarily assumes the performance of a duty, he is required to perform it carefully, not omitting to do what an ordinarily prudent person would do in accomplishing the task”. The court found that the acting lieutenant assumed control of the situation and, therefore, had a duty to exercise reasonable care in directing Wolf. The court emphasized that Wolf’s inexperience in fighting fires in that type of building and the poor visibility were critical factors. Because the lieutenant did not escort Wolf off the roof or warn him of the air shaft, the jury could find that the lieutenant acted negligently.

The court rejected the city’s arguments that Wolf was contributorily negligent or had assumed the risk. The court reasoned that the jury could find that Wolf was unaware of the air shaft and was justified in relying on the lieutenant’s directions. The court also found that there was evidence from which it could be found that Wolf did not fully perceive the risk involved. The court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the City of New York was liable for negligence.