## Facts

- Herbert Pridham entered Cash & Carry Building Center’s store as a business invitee to purchase paneling and other supplies.
- The store displayed paneling upright in racks secured by a rope; employees testified the rope was used as a safety measure to prevent panels from falling.
- On a windy day, with large garage-type doors open, a clerk approached a rack holding about 50 vinyl panels (totaling roughly 400–500 pounds).
- With Pridham standing directly behind him, the clerk untied the rope and removed the cover sheet without warning.
- The remaining panels fell onto Pridham, knocking him to the concrete floor and pinning him under the panels.
- An ambulance was summoned to transport Pridham for treatment; during the trip, the ambulance was involved in a crash.
- Pridham died later that day from the combined effects of the store incident and the subsequent ambulance accident.
- The estate administrator sued Cash & Carry and also brought companion actions against the town owning the ambulance and the ambulance driver’s estate; the companion actions settled during trial.
- A jury returned a $50,000 verdict against Cash & Carry, reduced by $10,000 to reflect the companion settlements.

## Issues

1. Whether Cash & Carry breached its duty of reasonable care to a business invitee by the manner in which its employee untied the paneling rack and removed the cover sheet without warning.
2. Whether Cash & Carry’s negligence was a proximate cause of additional injury and death resulting from a later ambulance accident during transport for treatment of the initial injury.
3. Whether reducing the verdict by the amounts paid in settlements with other defendants improperly applied the collateral-source rule or otherwise affected damages.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The evidence supported submitting negligence to the jury; denial of nonsuit and directed verdict was proper.
- The trial court correctly instructed that a tortfeasor liable for an injury is also liable for additional bodily harm arising from normal efforts of third persons rendering aid required by that injury, whether the aid is proper or negligent.
- The ambulance accident did not break causation; the jury could find the store’s negligence proximately caused the full harm, including death.
- The $10,000 reduction for settlements in companion actions was permissible and did not violate collateral-source principles.

## Legal Principles

- A possessor of land owes a business invitee a duty to use reasonable care to avoid injury from the negligent activities of the possessor or its employees.
- When an initial injury reasonably requires medical aid or transport, the original tortfeasor is liable for additional harm resulting from normal rescue or medical efforts, even if the third parties act negligently.
- Intervening events during required medical transport are within the scope of foreseeable risk and do not necessarily supersede the original negligence for proximate-cause purposes.
- Amounts paid in settlement by other potentially liable parties may be treated as setoffs to prevent double recovery.

## Conclusion

The court held that the store’s negligent handling of a secured, heavy paneling display could support liability not only for the initial injuries but also for death following a subsequent ambulance crash during medically necessary transport, and it approved reducing the verdict by settlements paid by other defendants.


Pridham v. Cash & Carry Bldg. Ctr., Inc., 359 A.2d 193 (N.H. 1976)