Dowdell v. Wilhelm
305 Ga. App. 102, 699 S.E.2d 30, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 1783 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An independent, intervening criminal act of a third party will supersede a defendant's negligence as the proximate cause of an injury if the criminal act was not a reasonably foreseeable and probable consequence of the defendant's negligence, particularly when the act occurs remotely in time and distance from the initial negligent conduct.
Facts:
- In 2004, Brian Nichols was arrested for rape, false imprisonment, aggravated assault, and burglary, and was awaiting trial in Fulton County in March 2005.
- In February 2005, a church pastor alerted Sergeant Dowdell that Nichols planned to overpower an officer, take a weapon, and escape from custody, but Dowdell did not specifically report the escape plan to his direct superior.
- On March 9, 2005, an officer discovered an improvised weapon hidden in Nichols’s shoes and reported it to Lieutenant Clerk-Mathis, who logged the information but did not inform her captain nor order Nichols on 'lock down' status or search his cell.
- On March 11, 2005, Appellants, including Captain Lee, Lieutenant Reid, and Deputy Tamer, were allegedly negligent in their duties, such as Reid being absent from his post and Tamer allegedly vacating the central control room.
- On March 11, 2005, Nichols overpowered a single female deputy within the courthouse holding area, obtained her service weapon, and then shot and killed Judge Barnes and court reporter Julie Ann Brandau inside the courthouse, before fleeing.
- Nichols subsequently fled the courthouse, hijacked multiple cars, escaped the area via subway, and several hours later, approximately six miles from the courthouse in northwest Atlanta, he shot and killed David Wilhelm, an off-duty federal agent, at Wilhelm’s partially constructed home.
Procedural Posture:
- Candee Wilhelm, as David Wilhelm’s surviving spouse and executrix of his estate, filed a wrongful death claim in a trial court (court of first instance) against Appellants (Jerome Dowdell, Chelisa Lee, Twantta Clerk-Mathis, Grantley White, Paul Tamer, and Gary Reid), who were deputies in the Fulton County Sheriff's Department, and other defendants.
- The claims alleged that various negligent acts committed by the deputies caused David Wilhelm’s death.
- Following a limited discovery period, Appellants moved for summary judgment on several grounds.
- The trial court denied Appellants’ motions for summary judgment.
- Appellants appealed the denial of summary judgment to the Georgia Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court); these appeals were consolidated 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 an escaped prisoner's subsequent criminal act of killing a bystander several hours later and miles away from the escape constitute a reasonably foreseeable consequence of deputies' alleged negligence in facilitating the escape, such that the deputies' negligence is the proximate cause of the bystander's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Doyle, Judge
No, an escaped prisoner's subsequent criminal act of killing a bystander several hours later and miles away from the escape does not constitute a reasonably foreseeable consequence of deputies' alleged negligence, meaning the deputies' negligence is not the proximate cause of the bystander's death. The court held that Nichols’s criminal act of shooting David Wilhelm was the superseding proximate cause of Wilhelm’s death. While negligence is only actionable if it is the proximate cause of injury, and generally questions of proximate cause are for the jury, this case presented plain and indisputable facts allowing for a judicial determination as a matter of law. The court reiterated that an independent, intervening criminal act of a third party will supersede any defendant's negligence unless the criminal act is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligent act. Foreseeable consequences are those which are 'probable,' according to ordinary and usual experience, not merely possible or remotely probable. The court distinguished this case from Clarke v. Freeman, where Nichols's violence within the courthouse during the escape was deemed foreseeable given specific warnings. However, the subsequent fatal shooting of an unrelated bystander at his home six miles away and several hours later was not a 'consequence which is probable, according to ordinary and usual experience.' The court emphasized the remoteness in time and distance, stating that warnings about a violent escape attempt do not imply foreseeability of a later, distant crime against an unconnected individual. The court concluded that although the deputies’ alleged malfeasance might have been the cause in fact of some injuries, Nichols’s intervening criminal act of shooting David Wilhelm at his home six miles from the courthouse was the superseding proximate cause of Wilhelm’s death.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the scope of proximate cause in negligence actions, especially when an independent, intervening criminal act occurs. It reinforces that for an intervening criminal act not to supersede a defendant's negligence, it must be a reasonably probable consequence, not merely possible, and remoteness in time and distance is a critical factor weighing against foreseeability. The ruling impacts future cases involving custodian liability and third-party criminal acts, establishing a stricter standard for connecting initial negligence to distant, unrelated criminal acts. It highlights that factual causation ('cause in fact') is distinct from legal causation ('proximate cause'), emphasizing that the causal connection must not be too remote for legal liability.
