Goodwin v. James
595 A.2d 504, 1991 N.H. LEXIS 105, 134 N.H. 579 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who organizes and directs a foreseeably dangerous activity owes a duty of ordinary care to a volunteer assisting in that activity, especially when the organizer is aware of the specific risks involved.
Facts:
- On a day with sub-zero temperatures, David James's truck would not start.
- James asked his neighbor, Frederick Goodwin, to help him start the truck.
- After an attempt with jumper cables failed, the men decided to push-start the truck using a car driven by a third person, Shannon.
- David James asked his wife, Faye James, to steer the stalled truck during the maneuver.
- Because the car's bumper was higher than the truck's, David James climbed onto the car's hood to add weight and align them.
- James was then joined on the hood by another man, Farrington, and finally by Goodwin, whose weight was needed to make the bumpers connect.
- Goodwin, positioned near the front of the hood, was initially holding the truck's tailgate for stability.
- David James told Goodwin to release his hold on the truck, leaving Goodwin with no handhold, and then signaled for the pushing to begin.
- After the truck started and pulled away, Goodwin fell from the hood and was run over by the car he had been sitting on.
- David James later testified that he knew at the time the entire undertaking was 'a bad safety idea.'
Procedural Posture:
- Frederick Goodwin and his wife, Gertrude Goodwin, sued David James and Faye James in the Superior Court (trial court) for negligence and loss of consortium.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' presentation of evidence at trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court judge granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the case, ruling that the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs, Frederick and Gertrude Goodwin, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who organizes and directs a dangerous method to start a stalled vehicle owe a duty of care to a volunteer who is foreseeably endangered and subsequently injured during the attempt?
Opinions:
Majority - Batchelder, J.
Yes, as to David James; No, as to Faye James. A person who actively organizes, directs, and participates in an activity with foreseeable risks owes a duty of care to others involved, while a person who merely follows directions without knowledge of the specific danger does not. The court found that David James owed a duty to Goodwin because he initiated the request for help, directed the entire unsafe operation, observed Goodwin's precarious position, instructed Goodwin to let go of his only handhold, and admitted he knew the activity was dangerous. The risk of harm to Goodwin was a hazard apparent to the 'eye of ordinary vigilance,' distinguishing this case from the unforeseeable plaintiff in Palsgraf. In contrast, Faye James owed no duty because she was merely following her husband's instructions, had no role in organizing the maneuver, and was unaware that Goodwin was even on the hood of the other car.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and applies the foreseeability principle from Palsgraf to establish a duty of care in the context of a joint, informal undertaking. It clarifies that actively creating and controlling a dangerous situation generates a duty to participants, even if they are volunteers. The ruling distinguishes between an active organizer with knowledge of the risks (David James) and a passive participant following instructions (Faye James), making control and awareness key factors in the duty analysis. This precedent is significant for cases involving cooperative activities where one party's direction and knowledge of foreseeable danger can create liability for injuries to another participant.
