Reed v. County of Hillsborough

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal of Louise Reed’s negligence action against Hillsborough County arising from her fall on a courthouse sidewalk. The court held that expert medical testimony was not required to establish causation and damages for obvious injuries such as abrasions when the causal relationship is within common experience. It reversed the dismissal in part and remanded for further proceedings concerning those injuries and any other nonpermanent injuries.

Holdings

1. Expert testimony is required when the causal connection between an injury and the alleged event depends on observation and analysis outside the common experience of jurors, but it is not required when the cause and effect are so immediate, direct, and natural to common experience that a jury can determine causation without expert assistance.
2. The dismissal was improper to the extent the plaintiff sought damages for abrasions to her head, neck, back, and leg, because jurors could determine without expert testimony that the fall could have caused those obvious injuries.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiff's negligence action on the ground that expert medical testimony was necessary to prove causation and damages.
2. Whether a jury could determine, based on common experience, that the plaintiff's fall caused alleged abrasions without expert testimony.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded