Barker v. City of Philadelphia
134 F.Supp. 231 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A negligent actor is liable for all consequences proximately caused by their negligence, regardless of whether the specific manner or extent of the injury was foreseeable. Foreseeability of some harm is relevant to determining if the conduct was negligent in the first place, but not to the extent of liability once negligence is established.
Facts:
- A City of Philadelphia trash truck driver operated his vehicle on a street in a densely populated neighborhood that he knew was frequented by children.
- The driver, who was familiar with the area, was proceeding to a city garage located on the same street.
- While attempting to drive around another double-parked city truck, the driver observed a large piece of brown wrapping paper, approximately six feet in diameter and two to three feet high, lying partially in the street.
- The driver decided to avoid the paper, believing it might contain broken bottles that could damage the truck's tires.
- Robert P. Ebbecke, a minor, and a playmate were playing underneath the large piece of paper.
- In his attempt to maneuver between the double-parked truck and the paper, the driver misjudged the distance and ran over the paper.
- The truck crushed and killed Robert P. Ebbecke.
Procedural Posture:
- Dolores Barker, administratrix of the estate of Robert P. Ebbecke, filed suit against the City of Philadelphia in federal district court, seeking damages under Pennsylvania's Wrongful Death and Survival Statutes.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant, City of Philadelphia, filed a motion to set aside the verdicts and for judgment n.o.v. (non obstante veredicto), asking the court to enter a judgment in its favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's inability to foresee the specific harm that resulted from their conduct absolve them of liability for negligence, if a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that the conduct created a risk of some harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Lord, District Judge.
No. A defendant's inability to foresee the specific harm that resulted does not absolve them of liability if their conduct was negligent. Once an act is determined to be negligent because it created a foreseeable risk of some harm, the actor is liable for the resulting consequences, even if those consequences were not reasonably anticipated. Here, the driver's conduct was negligent because a prudent person would have foreseen that running over a large, raised object in the street could cause some form of damage or injury. The driver himself acknowledged this risk by attempting to avoid the paper. His failure to do so successfully was a breach of his duty of care. Therefore, the City is liable for the death of the child, even though the driver could not have specifically foreseen that a child was under the paper.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between the role of foreseeability in establishing a breach of duty versus its role in determining proximate cause. It reinforces the legal principle that a negligent defendant 'takes his victim as he finds him,' extending this concept to the surrounding circumstances. The decision establishes that once an act is deemed negligent because it poses a foreseeable risk of any harm, the tortfeasor is liable for the full scope of the resulting harm, even if the specific manner or severity of the injury was bizarre or unforeseeable. This precedent strengthens the position of plaintiffs by focusing the negligence inquiry on the defendant's initial careless conduct rather than their ability to predict the precise chain of events.
Unlock the full brief for Barker v. City of Philadelphia