Everitt v. General Electric Co.

New Hampshire Supreme Court · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyVoluntary assumption of dutySpecial relationshipsnegligencedutysummary judgment

Facts

The plaintiff was injured when a car driven by Jeremiah Citro struck the vehicle in which she was riding as a passenger. Citro was a GE employee who had been sent home the previous day after appearing confused and disoriented and was told not to return until Monday, but he came to the plant the next day anyway. Hawkom, a GE supervisor, told Citro to leave, and GE personnel called Hooksett police twice because of Citro's presence at the plant; on the second occasion police conducted field sobriety tests and determined he could safely drive. About two hours later, Citro caused the accident injuring the plaintiff.

Issue

Did GE's internal policy concerning impaired employees create a duty of care to the plaintiff, a member of the public, to prevent Citro from driving? Alternatively, did GE and Hawkom owe and breach a duty to control Citro under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 317 or 319?

Rule

Whether a duty exists is a question of law. The mere existence of an internal corporate policy setting forth procedures for dealing with an impaired employee does not, by itself, create a duty of care to the public at large. Even assuming a duty to control a third person under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 317 or 319, that duty is satisfied where the defendants contact police, police take charge of the person, and nothing indicates further action is required.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North Ridge Fabrication operates a plant in Toledo, Ohio. Its handbook says supervisors must never allow an apparently intoxicated employee to drive from the premises and should arrange a taxi instead. A supervisor ignores the handbook, lets Evan Pike leave in his own car, and Evan later injures Nina Solis, a stranger to the company, in a crash downtown.

In Nina's negligence suit against North Ridge, which is the strongest argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that the mere existence of an internal corporate policy addressing impaired employees does not, standing alone, create a duty of care to the public at large. Duty is a question of law for the court, not automatically created by internal rules or by language in a handbook. (Derived from Everitt v. General Electric Co. (n.d.).)