30b0fca3-b706-424d-a984-e79b3e770e29.doc
Page 320
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp, NY Court of Appeals, 1980 Was the accident a foreseeable consequence of not protecting the job site or was it a superseding event? Issue Reasoning Rule
An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause And relieve actor of responsibility Where the risk of the intervening act occurring
Facts
∏ was injured on an excavation site when the driver of a car (Dickens) suffered an epileptic seizure drove into the site…
Jury question, not matter of law, whether Dickens’ act was superseding. That the driver was negligent or reckless does not absolve ∆ from liability. Jury could find that the foreseeable, normal and naural result of the risk created by Felix was the injury of a worker by a car entering the improperly protected work area. How extraordinary is the intervening act under the circumstances? Is it foreseeable under the normal course of events? If independent of or far removed from ∆’s conduct, then probably a superseding act.
is the very same risk which rendered the actor negligent
A traffic safety expert testified that the site was protected by the usual and standard methods for the protection of the workers.
That ∆ could not anticipate the precise manner of the accident or the exact extent of injuries, does not preclude liability as a matter of law where the general risk and character of injuries are foreseeable
Held Procedure P argues D argues
∆ negligently failed to take adequate measures to insure safety of workers on the work site. It was a freakish accident brought about by Dickens’ (the driver) negligence.
30b0fca3-b706-424d-a984-e79b3e770e29.doc
Page 320
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant employer sought review of an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, holding the employer liable in a negligence action for injuries suffered by plaintiff employee, who was struck by a car at his work site. OVERVIEW: Plaintiff employee was injured on an excavation job when he was struck by a car driven by a man suffering an epileptic seizure. Plaintiff and plaintiff's wife sued defendant employer, defendant driver, and defendant contractor for negligence, claiming that the employer failed to maintain a safe work site by erecting a traffic barrier. The trial court found for plaintiff, apportioning defendant employer's liability at 55 percent. On appeal, defendant employer argued that there was no causal link between the employer's breach of duty and plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed because plaintiff's injuries were a foreseeable result of the risk created by the employer. OUTCOME: The court affirmed the decision holding defendant employer liable for negligence because plaintiff employee's injuries were a foreseeable result of defendant employer's failure to maintain safe work site.
HN2
Depending upon the nature of the case, a variety of factors may be relevant in assessing legal cause. Given the unique nature of the inquiry in each case, it is for the finder of fact to determine legal cause, once the court has been satisfied that a prima facie case has been established. More Like This Headnote To carry the burden of proving a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must generally show that the defendant's negligence was a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury. Plaintiff need not demonstrate, however, that the precise manner in which the accident happened, or the extent of injuries, was foreseeable. More Like This Headnote Where the acts of a third person intervene between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury, the causal connection is not automatically severed. In such a case, liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant's negligence. If an intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant's conduct, it may well be a superseding act which breaks the causal nexus. Because questions concerning what is foreseeable and what is normal may be the subject of varying inferences, as is the question of negligence itself, these issues generally are for the fact finder to resolve. More Like This Headnote There are certain instances where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts and where the question of legal cause may be decided as a matter of law. Those cases generally involve independent intervening acts which operate upon but do not flow from the original negligence. More Like This Headnote An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act occurring is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent. More Like This Headnote
HN3
HN4
HN5
HN6