Alexander v. Town of New Castle
17 N.E. 200, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 294, 115 Ind. 51 (1888)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's negligence is not the proximate cause of a plaintiff's injury if a subsequent, independent, and responsible human action intervenes and serves as the immediate cause of the harm.
Facts:
- The Town of New Castle negligently permitted a pit or excavation to remain open and uninclosed on the side of one of its streets.
- Harvey W. Alexander, after participating in a game of chance to gather evidence, obtained a warrant for the arrest of a man named Heavenridge.
- A justice of the peace appointed Alexander as a special constable to arrest Heavenridge.
- Alexander arrested Heavenridge and was escorting him to the county jail.
- While passing the open pit, Heavenridge seized Alexander and intentionally threw him into it.
- Alexander was injured as a result of being thrown into the pit, and Heavenridge escaped custody.
Procedural Posture:
- Harvey W. Alexander sued the Town of New Castle in the circuit court (trial court) for negligence.
- The town filed an answer, including an affirmative defense that a third party, Heavenridge, was the direct cause of the injury.
- Alexander filed a demurrer to the town's second defense, arguing it was legally insufficient to defeat his claim.
- The trial court overruled Alexander's demurrer, allowing the defense to stand.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for the Town of New Castle.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the town, from which Alexander (the appellant) appealed to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a town's negligence in maintaining a public sidewalk the proximate cause of an injury when the immediate cause of that injury was a third party's independent, intentional act of throwing the plaintiff into the hazardous condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Niblack, C. J.
No. A town's negligence is not the proximate cause of an injury when a third party's independent, intentional act is the immediate cause of the injury. For a party to be held liable, their negligence must be the proximate cause of the harm. The court found that the causal connection between the town's negligence (the open pit) and Alexander's injury was broken by the 'interposition of independent responsible human action.' Heavenridge's malicious act of throwing Alexander into the pit was an intervening and independent agency that directly produced the harm. This act served as a 'non-conductor,' insulating the town's original negligence from liability.
Analysis:
This case is a classic illustration of the tort law doctrine of intervening or superseding cause. It clarifies that a defendant's negligence that merely creates a passive condition is not the proximate cause of an injury if a subsequent, independent, and unforeseeable act of a third party actively causes the harm. This principle serves to limit the scope of liability for negligence, preventing a defendant from being held responsible for a potentially infinite chain of consequences, particularly when a malicious or criminal act intervenes. The decision reinforces that the 'but for' test of causation is insufficient; the negligence must also be a direct and substantial factor in bringing about the injury without being superseded by another's independent action.
Unlock the full brief for Alexander v. Town of New Castle