5 N.Y.3d 574 (2005)
Theater owners have a duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of their patrons but are not insurers of their safety, and internal policies that require a standard transcending reasonable care cannot be the basis for imposing liability.
Summary
Estelle Gilson sued the Metropolitan Opera for negligence after being injured when another patron with Parkinson’s disease fell on her in a darkened theater. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Opera did not breach any duty of care owed to Gilson by failing to escort the infirm patron to his seat. The court reasoned that imposing such a duty would significantly enlarge the scope of a theater owner’s responsibility and that internal guidelines requiring ushers to escort patrons with flashlights when house lights are low exceed the standard of ordinary care and cannot be used as evidence of negligence.
Facts
Estelle Gilson attended a performance at the Metropolitan Opera. During the intermission, she left her seat and returned as the second act was about to begin. Another patron, Donald Taitt, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease, also returned late with his wife. Gilson rose to allow the Taitts to pass, and Taitt lost his balance, falling on Gilson and causing her injury.
Procedural History
Gilson sued the Metropolitan Opera, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied the Opera’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. Gilson appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Metropolitan Opera owed a duty of care to Gilson that required it to escort Donald Taitt, an obviously infirm patron, to his seat.
Holding
No, because imposing such a duty would significantly enlarge the duty of theater owners to their patrons beyond exercising reasonable care, and the Opera’s relationship to the parties did not put it in the best position to protect against the risk of harm.
Court’s Reasoning
The court determined whether the defendant owed a legally recognized duty to the plaintiff by balancing several factors, including the reasonable expectations of parties, the potential for proliferating claims, and public policy considerations. The court stated it is reluctant to extend the duty of care such that a defendant may become liable for the conduct of others. The court reasoned that the Opera’s relationship with both Gilson and Taitt did not put it in the best position to protect against the risk posed by Taitt’s infirmity. The court also addressed the Opera’s internal policy regarding escorting patrons, stating that such internal guidelines requiring a standard that transcends reasonable care, a breach cannot be considered evidence of negligence, quoting Sherman v Robinson, 80 NY2d 483, 489 3 (1992). The dissenting judge argued that a jury should determine whether the Opera’s conduct fell short of reasonable care when employees allowed Taitt into the theater without assistance, given his apparent infirmity, citing Longacre v Yonkers R.R. Co. (236 NY 119, 123 [1923]), however, the majority rejected that argument.