Brenda L. Butkus, Administrator of the Estate of Michael D. Veilleux & a. v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc.

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their negligence complaint arising from the death of Michael D. Veilleux in a supermarket parking lot. The court held that the employee who struck the decedent was not acting within the scope of employment for purposes of respondeat superior, and that the employee who observed the decedent did not breach an assumed duty to aid. The court resolved the appeal by order under New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 20(2).

Holdings

1. The proposed amended complaint did not allege facts establishing that the driving employee was acting within the scope of employment when he exited his parking space after clocking out and shopping for approximately forty minutes.
2. New Hampshire law does not recognize a premises exception to the coming-and-going rule in the respondeat superior context.
3. Even assuming that the observing employee undertook a duty to aid Veilleux by approaching him, the proposed amended complaint did not allege a breach because the employee's conduct did not increase the danger to Veilleux or place him in a worse position.
4. The trial court properly denied the motion to amend because the proposed amended complaint failed to cure the defects in the original complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the proposed amended complaint adequately alleged that the driving employee was acting within the scope of employment for purposes of respondeat superior.
2. Whether New Hampshire recognizes a premises exception to the coming-and-going rule in the respondeat superior context.
3. Whether the observing employee breached an assumed duty to aid or protect Veilleux.
4. Whether the trial court properly denied leave to amend because the proposed amended complaint failed to cure the defects in the original complaint.

Disposition

affirmed