Lucas v. City of Juneau
1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3783, 15 Alaska 413, 127 F. Supp. 730 (1955)
Rule of Law:
An original tortfeasor is liable not only for the direct injuries caused by their negligence but also for subsequent aggravations of those injuries resulting from negligent medical treatment or negligent transportation required to obtain such treatment, as these are considered a normal incident of the risk created.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, while an invitee in the order office of Sears, Roebuck & Co. in Juneau, stepped on a round pencil, causing him to fall and injure his back.
- After being confined in a local hospital for some time, it was decided that the plaintiff should enter the Veterans’ Hospital at Seattle for further treatment.
- Eighteen days after the initial injury, the plaintiff began his journey to the airport in an ambulance owned by the City of Juneau.
- En route, the ambulance driver suffered an epileptic fit, causing the ambulance to go out of control and off the highway.
- The plaintiff was thrown to the floor of the ambulance, and his original back injury was aggravated.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Sears, Roebuck & Co. and the City of Juneau in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, alleging negligence resulting in personal injuries and their aggravation.
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. and the City of Juneau filed motions to dismiss the action for misjoinder of defendants, arguing that they could not be sued together.
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 an original tortfeasor remain liable for an aggravation of an injury caused by subsequent negligent transportation to obtain medical treatment, thereby allowing joinder of the original tortfeasor and the subsequent negligent actor in a single action?
Opinions:
Majority - Folta, District Judge
Yes, an original tortfeasor does remain liable for an aggravation of an injury caused by subsequent negligent transportation to obtain medical treatment, and joinder of the original tortfeasor and the subsequent negligent actor is permissible. The court first rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Sears and the City were true joint tort-feasors, as their negligent acts produced two successive and separate injuries to the plaintiff's back, not a single, unified injury. Therefore, the rule of joint and several liability for the total damage was deemed inapplicable. Instead, the court applied the established rule holding an original wrongdoer liable for the aggravation caused by negligent medical treatment. The court reasoned that this liability is rooted in social policy and the general tort principle that an intervening force, such as negligent treatment, which is a 'normal incident of the risk created,' will not relieve the original defendant of liability. Critically, the court found no material distinction between negligent medical treatment itself and negligent transportation required to reach an institution where such treatment is available. The use of an ambulance, like a surgeon's scalpel, is necessitated by the defendant's original wrong. Accordingly, the court concluded that the risk borne by the original wrongdoer (Sears) includes not only negligent medical treatment but also negligent transportation to a place for treatment. Since Sears is liable for the aggravation, as is the City of Juneau for the ambulance driver's negligence, and the facts and circumstances of the aggravation (the ambulance wreck) present common questions of fact arising from a single occurrence, the defendants may be properly joined under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of an original tortfeasor's liability, extending it beyond direct medical malpractice to encompass negligent transportation undertaken to obtain necessary medical care. It reinforces the principle that liability can extend to foreseeable intervening acts that are a 'normal incident' of the initial injury, particularly when specialized medical treatment requires travel. This ruling provides a critical precedent for establishing a continuous chain of causation, ensuring that plaintiffs are not unduly burdened by having to pursue separate actions against multiple defendants for injuries stemming from a single initial negligent act and its necessary consequences, and it facilitates efficient judicial administration through appropriate joinder.
