Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Price
43 L.R.A. 402, 106 Ga. 176, 32 S.E. 77 (1898)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An original negligent act is not the proximate cause of an injury when the injury directly results from a separate, independent, and unforeseeable negligent act of a third party that intervenes between the original act and the injury.
Facts:
- Mrs. Price was a passenger on a train operated by the defendant railway company, with a destination of Winchester, Georgia.
- Due to the conductor's negligence, the train did not stop at Winchester, and Mrs. Price was carried on to Montezuma.
- Upon arriving in Montezuma, the conductor arranged for Mrs. Price to stay at a hotel for the night, agreeing that the railway company would pay for her expenses.
- The hotel proprietor or a servant provided Mrs. Price with a kerosene lamp for her room.
- During the night, the lamp exploded, setting fire to the mosquito net over her bed.
- Mrs. Price suffered severe burns to her hands while attempting to extinguish the flames.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Price sued the railway company for damages in the trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Price, awarding her $400.
- The railway company filed a motion for a new trial.
- The trial judge overruled the company's motion.
- The railway company (appellant) excepted to the ruling, bringing the case before the current court 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 a railway company's negligence in carrying a passenger beyond her destination constitute the proximate cause of injuries she subsequently suffers due to the negligence of a third-party hotel proprietor?
Opinions:
Majority - Simmons, C. J.
No, the railway company's negligence was not the proximate cause of the passenger's injuries. The court reasoned that the conductor, as an agent of the company, lacked the authority to appoint the hotel proprietor as a sub-agent. Therefore, the hotel proprietor's actions were not attributable to the company. More critically, the court held that the company's initial negligence of carrying Mrs. Price past her station was not the natural and proximate cause of her injury. The injury was caused by the interposition of a separate, independent agency—the negligence of the hotel proprietor in furnishing a defective lamp. This intervening act was not a foreseeable consequence of the original negligence, thus breaking the chain of causation and relieving the railway company of liability.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of proximate cause, specifically addressing the concept of a superseding, intervening cause. It establishes that for liability to attach, the resulting harm must be a natural and foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligent act. The case clarifies that an unforeseeable negligent act by a third party can sever the causal link, even if the defendant's negligence created the condition that made the injury possible. This principle limits the scope of liability by requiring a direct and foreseeable connection between the breach of duty and the harm suffered, preventing liability from extending to remote and unexpected consequences.
