Maldonado v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

Arizona Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsDuty to render aidIntentional interference with rescueFailure to report injuryRestatement (Second) of Torts § 322Restatement (Second) of Torts § 326dutyfailure to render aid

Facts

The complaint alleged that plaintiff, a Mexican citizen, tried to board defendant Southern Pacific's freight train in Arizona and that four of defendant's employees caused a jerking or bumping of the train cars, making him fall under the wheels. His left arm was severed, his left leg was broken, and he suffered other serious open and bleeding wounds. Count IV alleged that, after the injury, defendant's employees knew he was severely injured and helpless on Southern Pacific's right of way, heard his pleas for help from the caboose, and did nothing to assist him. Count III alleged that employees yelled at three persons who came to help plaintiff, thereby distracting and delaying them, and Count V alleged that defendants failed to call for medical assistance or report the injury.

Issue

Whether the complaint stated a claim that Southern Pacific owed and breached a duty to render reasonable aid to a person its train had injured and left helpless. Also, whether the complaint stated claims for intentional interference with rescuers and for failure to call for medical assistance or report the accident.

Rule

On a motion to dismiss, the court assumes the complaint's factual allegations are true and asks whether, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, they state a valid claim under any legal theory. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 322, if an actor knows or has reason to know that by his conduct, whether tortious or innocent, he has caused bodily harm that makes another helpless and in danger of further harm, the actor has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent that further harm. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 326, liability for interference with aid requires that the actor intentionally prevent a third person from giving necessary aid.

🔒

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.

In Tucson, Nora Kim lightly taps a cyclist with her pickup while pulling out of a parking lot. The cyclist, Leo Santos, falls into a drainage ditch, breaks his ankle, and cannot climb out. Nora sees him pleading for help and drives away without calling anyone. Hours later, exposure to cold rain worsens Leo’s injuries.

If Leo sues Nora for negligence based on her failure to assist after the collision, which is the strongest argument that his complaint states a claim?

Explanation. The majority adopted Restatement § 322: when an actor knows or has reason to know that by her conduct, whether tortious or innocent, she caused bodily harm that makes another helpless and in danger of further harm, she must exercise reasonable care to prevent that further harm. The duty is a separate post-injury duty and includes preventing aggravation or protraction of the original injury.