Anaya v. Superior Court
2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1622, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 228, 78 Cal. App. 4th 971 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An original tortfeasor is liable for subsequent injuries or death a victim suffers during necessary medical transportation, as such events are a foreseeable risk stemming from the initial negligence.
Facts:
- Ralph Diaz and Gabriel Lara, employees of the City of Los Angeles, stopped their trash truck in a traffic lane.
- A car occupied by Genoveva Anaya, Alfredo Vides, and their 11-year-old daughter, Norma Vides, collided with the stopped trash truck.
- Norma Vides sustained injuries in the collision.
- A city helicopter was dispatched to transport Norma from the accident scene to a medical facility for treatment.
- While en route to the hospital, the helicopter crashed.
- Norma Vides died as a result of the helicopter crash.
Procedural Posture:
- Genoveva Anaya and Alfredo Vides sued the City of Los Angeles and individual truck drivers Ralph Diaz, Gabriel Lara, and Robert Everton for wrongful death in California superior court (trial court).
- The individual defendants filed a demurrer, arguing their actions were not a proximate cause of the death.
- The superior court sustained the demurrer of the individual defendants, effectively dismissing the case against them.
- Anaya and Vides then petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a peremptory writ to command the superior court to overrule the demurrer.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an original tortfeasor whose negligence caused a traffic collision liable for the victim's subsequent death when a medical transport helicopter, evacuating the victim from the scene, crashes?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
Yes. An original tortfeasor is liable for the victim's death because subsequent harm suffered during necessary medical transportation is a foreseeable consequence of the original negligence. The court extends the established principle that a tortfeasor is liable for the aggravation of injuries caused by subsequent negligent medical treatment. The court reasons that transportation to a medical facility is a necessary and foreseeable part of obtaining medical care. Therefore, the risk of harm during transportation is a normal part of the aftermath of the initial tort. The court holds that the chain of causation remains unbroken, and neither alleged negligence in the helicopter's maintenance nor the manufacturer's strict liability constitutes a superseding cause because such events are not 'extraordinarily negligent' and are a normal response to the situation created by the defendants' conduct.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and expands the scope of proximate cause in tort law, particularly concerning intervening acts. It clarifies that the long-standing rule holding original tortfeasors liable for subsequent medical malpractice also applies to injuries sustained during the transportation necessary to receive that medical care. This broadens the liability for defendants, establishing that their duty encompasses the entire rescue and treatment process that their negligence necessitates. The ruling makes it more difficult for original tortfeasors to escape liability by arguing that subsequent events in the chain of rescue and care, like a transport accident, were unforeseeable superseding causes.
