Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc.
820 A.2d 258 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence or product liability action where multiple parties' tortious conduct may have contributed to an injury, the doctrine of superseding cause is abandoned. Liability should instead be determined by applying proximate cause principles and apportioning fault among all parties whose conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm.
Facts:
- Neil Barry and Bernard Cohade were carpenters employed by DeLuca Construction Company (DeLuca).
- On February 26, 1998, they were shingling a roof while working on a wooden plank supported by roof brackets designed and manufactured by Quality Steel Products, Inc. and sold by Ring's End, Inc.
- The platform staging suddenly collapsed, causing Barry and Cohade to fall to the ground and sustain severe injuries.
- Immediately after the fall, a distorted roof bracket was found on the ground near where the plaintiffs fell.
- Expert testimony from both sides confirmed that the platform arm of the roof bracket was thinner than required by Quality Steel's own manufacturing specifications.
- Quality Steel's instructions suggested using sixteenpenny nails, but evidence was introduced that another DeLuca employee, Nate Manizza, may have installed the brackets in the area of the collapse using smaller, eightpenny nails.
- Evidence was also presented that the plaintiffs' employer, DeLuca, may have violated OSHA regulations by failing to provide additional fall protection, although an OSHA investigation after the accident found no violations.
Procedural Posture:
- Neil Barry and Bernard Cohade (plaintiffs) brought a product liability action against Quality Steel Products, Inc. and Ring's End, Inc. (defendants) in a Connecticut trial court.
- The defendants requested a jury instruction on the doctrine of superseding cause, arguing that the negligence of the plaintiffs' employer and coworker cut off their liability.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to prevent this defense and instructed the jury on superseding cause.
- The jury, answering special interrogatories, found that the defendants' product was defective and a proximate cause of the accident, but that the combined conduct of the plaintiffs' employer and coworkers was a superseding cause.
- Based on the finding of a superseding cause, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict and rendered judgment for the defendants.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the Appellate Court, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Connecticut for review.
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 the doctrine of superseding cause remain a viable defense in a product liability action where a defendant's tortious conduct is followed by a third party's negligent act, in a jurisdiction that has adopted comparative negligence and apportionment of liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Norcott, J.
No. The doctrine of superseding cause no longer serves a useful purpose in tort jurisprudence involving multiple negligent acts and should be abandoned in such cases. The court reasoned that in a system with comparative negligence and statutory apportionment of liability, instructing a jury on superseding cause unnecessarily complicates what is fundamentally a proximate cause analysis. The doctrine's historical function of shifting liability entirely from one party to another is inconsistent with the modern principle that each negligent party should pay for its proportionate share of the fault. The policy goals of limiting liability to foreseeable consequences are already embedded within the proximate cause requirement that a defendant's conduct must be a 'substantial factor' in bringing about the injury. Therefore, the simpler and clearer approach is for the fact-finder to determine whether each party's conduct was a proximate cause of the injury and then to apportion liability accordingly.
Analysis:
This decision formally abandons the doctrine of superseding cause in Connecticut for negligence-based cases involving multiple tortfeasors whose negligent acts contribute to an injury. It streamlines tort litigation by eliminating a confusing, all-or-nothing defense and focusing the jury's inquiry on proximate cause and apportionment. Under this new framework, a defendant whose tortious conduct is a proximate cause of an injury can no longer be completely absolved of fault by a subsequent negligent act, but will instead be held liable for their proportionate share of the damages. This holding aligns Connecticut with a modern trend in tort law that favors comparative fault principles over doctrines that shift liability entirely.
Unlock the full brief for Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc.