Pridham v. Cash & Carry Building Center, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate CauseWrongful DeathPremises Liabilitybusiness inviteereasonable carewarning duty

Facts

Pridham, a business invitee at defendant's building supply store, was standing behind a clerk at a panel display rack when the clerk untied the rope securing about 50 upright sheets of paneling without warning him. The panels fell onto Pridham, knocking him to the concrete floor and causing serious injuries. While he was being transported by ambulance to the hospital because of those injuries, the ambulance driver apparently suffered a heart attack, causing the ambulance to leave the road and strike a tree. There was testimony that Pridham later died from the injuries he received in the accident at Cash & Carry.

Issue

Whether Cash & Carry could be held liable not only for the injuries caused by the falling paneling, but also for additional injuries sustained in the ambulance crash while Pridham was being transported for medical treatment reasonably required by the original accident. The court also addressed whether there was sufficient evidence of defendant's negligence and whether the challenged rulings at trial required reversal.

Rule

A possessor of land owes a business invitee a duty to use reasonable care not to injure him by negligent activities, to warn him of dangerous conditions of which he does not know, and to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers arising from the arrangement or use of the premises. If a tortfeasor's negligence causes harm requiring medical, surgical, or hospital services, the tortfeasor is also liable for additional bodily harm resulting from normal efforts of third persons rendering such aid, whether performed properly or negligently; this principle includes injuries sustained during ambulance transport to a hospital when that transport is a necessary step in obtaining the required medical services.

🔒

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.

At a flooring warehouse in Columbus, Ohio, an employee carelessly releases a stack of boxed tiles without warning, and several boxes strike customer Daniel Moreno, causing suspected internal injuries. Paramedics place Daniel in an ambulance for immediate transport to a hospital, but on the way the driver runs a red light and crashes, worsening Daniel’s injuries.

If Daniel sues the warehouse for all his injuries, including those from the ambulance collision, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The governing rule is that when a tortfeasor’s negligence causes bodily harm requiring medical or hospital services, the tortfeasor is also liable for additional bodily harm resulting from normal efforts of third persons rendering that aid, whether done properly or negligently. The majority specifically extended that rule to ambulance transportation when transport is a necessary step in obtaining required medical services. So the warehouse’s negligence can remain a legal cause of the added injuries from the crash. (Derived from Pridham v. Cash & Carry Building Center, Inc. (n.d.).)