# Smith v. American Employers' Insurance

> Supreme Court of New Hampshire · June 30, 1960 · 102 N.H. 530

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735481

## Case

- **Full name:** Dorothy Smith v. American Employers’ Insurance Company
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Hampshire
- **Decided:** June 30, 1960
- **Citations:** 102 N.H. 530
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Blandin
- **Judges:** Blandin, Kenison, Lampron
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735481

## Opinion text

On rehearing. After the foregoing opinion was filed, the defendant moved for a rehearing and leave was granted to amici curiae to appear.
Blandin, J.
It is now suggested that the effect of the majority opinion is to hold the defendant liable to the plaintiff in her tort action. This is not so. Upon a trial of the case in order to prevail it will of course be necessary for her to prove her essential allegations, which upon the defendant’s motion to dismiss we now take as true.
In regard to the case of Schultz v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 125 F. Supp. 411 (E. D. Wash. 1954), it may well be that it cannot be said with certainty precisely upon what grounds the decision rests. However, the opinion does stress the fact that under the statute there involved the remedies against the employer or a third person were mutually exclusive and that to permit recovery against the carrier would open the door to double recovery. This, as previously pointed out, is contrary to our law. Furthermore, in the case before us, contrary to the situation in the Schultz case, the defendant is not being sued because of anything it did pursuant *538 to either our compensation statute or the policy of compensation insurance issued by it, but because of independent action undertaken which it is alleged resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries. It is thus clear that the Schultz case and opinions based upon similar facts and rationale are not decisive here.
Former result affirmed.
Kenison, C. J. and Lampron, J., dissented for reasons previously expressed; the others concurred.
June 30, 1960.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735481. Public record. Not legal advice.