Goar v. Village of Stephen
157 Minn. 228, 196 N.W. 171, 1923 Minn. LEXIS 875 (1923)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner's failure to perform its clear and affirmative duty to inspect and maintain a completed work, after a significant lapse of time since acceptance, constitutes an intervening and superseding cause that breaks the causal connection between the original contractor's negligence and a subsequent injury.
Facts:
- In September 1920, the Minnesota Electric Distributing Company ('the company') contracted to reconstruct an electrical distribution system for the Village of Stephen ('the village').
- During construction, the company installed a high-voltage 'jumper' wire that passed near low-voltage service wires on a transformer pole.
- On March 1, 1921, the company completed the work, which the village inspected and formally accepted, taking exclusive control over the system.
- For the following 17.5 months, the village conducted no inspections or maintenance on the electrical system or the pole in question.
- Over time, winds caused the jumper wire and a service wire to sway and rub together, eventually wearing through their insulation.
- On August 10, 1922, the uninsulated wires made contact, sending a high-voltage current into the home of plaintiff Goar, causing her severe electrical burns.
Procedural Posture:
- Goar sued the Village of Stephen and the Minnesota Electric Distributing Company in a Minnesota trial court for personal injuries.
- A jury found both defendants liable and returned a verdict for Goar for $12,500.
- Both defendants filed separate alternative motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
- The trial court denied the motions on the condition that Goar consent to a reduced verdict of $8,500, to which she agreed.
- Both defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
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 contractor's initial negligence in constructing an electrical system remain a proximate cause of an injury that occurs 17.5 months after the owner has accepted the work and completely failed to perform its duty of inspection and maintenance?
Opinions:
Majority - Stone, J.
No. A contractor's initial negligence is not the proximate cause of an injury when the owner's subsequent failure to inspect and maintain the work serves as an independent, superseding cause. The court reasoned that the village had an absolute and non-delegable duty to exercise a high degree of care commensurate with the dangers of high-voltage electricity. Its complete failure to inspect or maintain the system for nearly 18 months was a 'serious and wrongful inaction' that permitted the elements to create a dangerous condition. This prolonged neglect was not merely a concurring cause but an independent producing agency that broke the causal chain from the company's initial negligence. The court distinguished this case from those involving inherently dangerous products delivered directly to users, noting that here the company had a right to rely on the village, as the party in exclusive control, to perform its affirmative duty of inspection and maintenance and prevent such deterioration.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limit of a contractor's liability after work has been completed and accepted by the owner. It solidifies the doctrine of superseding cause, establishing that an owner's prolonged and complete failure to fulfill its duty to inspect and maintain can sever the causal link to the contractor's original negligence. The case provides a significant defense for contractors against liability for injuries occurring long after project completion, shifting the legal responsibility to the party in exclusive control with the duty to maintain safety. This holding emphasizes that an owner's post-acceptance duties are not passive, and their omission can become the sole proximate cause of a subsequent accident.
