## Facts

- Marshall rode as a passenger in a car driven by Harriman on a snow- and ice-covered highway in New Hampshire.
- On a sharply banked curve, an oncoming oil truck owned by Socony and driven by Prince crossed into Harriman’s lane, creating an imminent collision risk.
- Harriman steered into a snowbank to avoid impact; the car skidded off the roadway and stopped without initial injury.
- The truck stopped nearby on or near a blind, slippery curve, partially obstructing traffic.
- Prince and Harriman attempted to address the situation and arranged for warnings to approaching traffic.
- Marshall walked along the highway to warn oncoming vehicles.
- Nugent approached in his car, swerved to avoid the truck/obstruction, hit a guardrail, and then struck Marshall, causing serious injury.
- Marshall sued Socony and Nugent; the jury found for Marshall against Socony ($25,000) and for Nugent; Socony appealed and Marshall cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Socony’s driver’s negligence could be found a legal (proximate) cause of Marshall’s injuries despite Nugent’s later impact.
2. Whether Marshall was contributorily negligent as a matter of law by attempting to warn traffic near the roadway.
3. Whether alleged trial errors required reversal of the defense verdict in favor of Nugent.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment against Socony.
- The court held the evidence permitted a jury finding that Socony’s driver created and maintained a dangerous traffic situation on a blind, icy curve and that Marshall’s injury fell within the foreseeable risk of that situation.
- The court held Nugent’s conduct did not break causation as a superseding cause as a matter of law.
- The court held contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury.
- The court affirmed the judgment for Nugent, finding no reversible error affecting the verdict in his favor.

## Legal Principles

- Proximate cause is a limitation of liability based on whether the injury resulted from a foreseeable type of risk created by the defendant’s negligence.
- When negligence creates an ongoing roadway hazard, later harm occurring while the hazard persists may be treated as part of a single continuing sequence for legal-cause purposes.
- An intervening act is not a superseding cause when it is a foreseeable reaction to the danger created (e.g., evasive driving in response to an obstruction).
- Contributory negligence is generally for the jury where reasonable factfinders could differ on whether the plaintiff’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.
- An employer may be vicariously liable where its employee’s post-incident conduct remains connected to operating and managing the vehicle and its effects on traffic.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the verdict against the truck owner because the driver’s negligent creation and continuation of a hazardous traffic obstruction could reasonably be found a foreseeable legal cause of the plaintiff’s later injury, while also leaving intact the jury’s defense verdict for the driver who struck the plaintiff and treating contributory negligence and intervening-cause questions as matters for the jury on this record.


Marshall v. Nugent, 222 F.2d 604 (1st Cir. 1955)