Pridham v. Cash & Carry Building Center, Inc.
116 N.H. 292, 359 A.2d 193, 1976 N.H. LEXIS 335 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An original tortfeasor whose negligence causes injury is liable for any additional harm the victim suffers as a result of normal efforts by third persons in rendering aid, including injuries sustained during transportation to a medical facility.
Facts:
- Herbert Pridham, a customer at a Cash & Carry store, was standing behind a store clerk.
- The clerk untied a rope securing approximately 50 sheets of vinyl paneling, weighing 400-500 pounds in total.
- The unsecured panels fell onto Pridham, knocking him to the concrete floor and breaking his belt.
- Pridham sustained serious injuries, including a head wound and an inability to move his legs.
- An ambulance was called to transport Pridham to the hospital for his injuries.
- While en route to the hospital, the ambulance driver suffered a heart attack, causing the vehicle to swerve off the road and strike a tree.
- The impact of the crash caused further injury to Pridham.
- Pridham was pronounced dead later the same day.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, representing the estate of Herbert Pridham, filed a wrongful death action in the trial court against Cash & Carry Building Center, the town of Newington (ambulance owner), and the estate of the ambulance driver.
- During the trial, the plaintiff settled with the town of Newington and the ambulance driver's estate for $10,000.
- The trial against Cash & Carry proceeded, and the defendant's motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict were denied by the trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $50,000.
- The trial court reduced the jury's award by the $10,000 settlement amount.
- The defendant, Cash & Carry, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, challenging the denial of its motions and various trial court rulings.
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 liable for a victim's death that occurs after a subsequent, independent event (an ambulance crash) during the course of rendering aid necessitated by the original tortfeasor's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Lampron, J.
Yes, an original tortfeasor is liable for additional injuries suffered by the victim during the course of rendering aid. The court held that if a tortfeasor's negligence requires the victim to seek medical services, the tortfeasor's negligence is the legal cause of any additional harm that results from the normal efforts of those rendering aid. This principle extends to injuries sustained during transportation to a hospital, as such conveyance is a necessary and foreseeable step in securing required medical services. The court relied on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 457 and prior case law, reasoning that the victim's involuntary submission to such services makes the original wrongdoer liable for the consequences, even if those rendering aid are negligent. Therefore, the ambulance crash did not constitute a superseding cause that would sever the chain of liability from Cash & Carry's initial negligence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and expands the doctrine of proximate cause, clarifying that the chain of liability for an original tortfeasor is not broken by subsequent events occurring during the course of necessary medical aid. By extending the established rule for negligent medical treatment to include accidents during medical transport, the court broadens the scope of foreseeable risk for which a defendant can be held liable. The case establishes a strong precedent that the risks inherent in rescue and transportation to receive care are legally attributable to the party who created the need for that care in the first place. This holding makes it more difficult for original tortfeasors to escape liability by pointing to intervening acts during the aid-rendering process.
