Hain v. Jamison
28 N.Y.3d 524, 68 N.E.3d 1233 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's negligence is a proximate cause of injury if it is a substantial cause of the events producing the injury, and an intervening act does not sever this causal connection if the risk of the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant's negligence.
Facts:
- One evening, the decedent, the wife of the plaintiff, was walking in the northbound lane of a rural road.
- A vehicle driven by one of the Jamison defendants struck and killed the decedent.
- At the time of the collision, the decedent was assisting a calf that was loose in the roadway.
- The calf was owned by Drumm Family Farm, Inc. and had escaped its nearby enclosure.
- Daniel Drumm, the Farm's owner, was alerted to the calf's escape around 10:00 p.m. by his stepdaughter, who had learned from a relative that a neighbor had seen the calf loose near the road 30-45 minutes earlier.
- Evidence from Drumm’s deposition and a neighbor’s affidavit indicated that the fence surrounding the farm was in poor condition and cows had escaped and wandered near and into the roadway on prior occasions.
- The driver who struck decedent testified that she slowed for a curve, saw bright headlights from a vehicle pulled over on the southbound side, and then saw the decedent and what she initially thought was a dog (later learned to be a calf) in the road milliseconds before hitting them.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the decedent’s estate, commenced a negligence action against the Jamison defendants and Drumm Family Farm, Inc. in Supreme Court (trial court/court of first instance).
- Drumm Family Farm and the Jamison defendants answered the complaint and asserted cross claims for contribution and indemnification against each other.
- Drumm Family Farm moved for summary judgment in Supreme Court, arguing that its alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of decedent’s death.
- Supreme Court denied Drumm Family Farm’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the decedent’s conduct was not unforeseeable as a matter of law.
- Drumm Family Farm appealed Supreme Court's denial of summary judgment to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's order, granted Drumm Family Farm's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint and cross claims as asserted against it, finding the Farm's negligence merely furnished the occasion for the injury.
- The Jamison defendants sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their cross claims against Drumm Family Farm to the Court of Appeals of New York (highest court); plaintiff did not seek leave to appeal.
- The Court of Appeals of New York granted the Jamison defendants leave to appeal.
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 alleged negligence in allowing a farm animal to escape into a roadway constitute, as a matter of law, merely furnishing the occasion for an injury, thereby severing the chain of proximate causation, when a motorist exits her vehicle to assist the animal and is subsequently struck by another vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Stein, J.
No, Drumm Family Farm's alleged negligence in allowing a farm animal to escape into a roadway does not, as a matter of law, cease to be a proximate cause of injury when a motorist exits her vehicle to assist the animal and is subsequently struck by another vehicle; proximate cause remains a question for the factfinder. The court reasoned that proximate cause is generally a question for the factfinder, turning on foreseeability, because what is foreseeable and normal may be subject to varying inferences. A defendant’s negligence is a proximate cause if it is a 'substantial cause of the events which produced the injury.' When an intervening act occurs, liability depends on whether the intervening act is a 'normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence.' The causal connection is not automatically severed unless the intervening act is 'extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct.' Here, the very same risk that made the Farm’s alleged failure to restrain its calf negligent—the wandering calf entering a roadway and causing a collision—was the risk that actually materialized. The inability to predict the exact manner of the accident does not preclude liability if the general risk and character of injuries were foreseeable. Furthermore, the Farm’s alleged negligence (the wandering calf) was not a completed occurrence, as the animal was still loose and presented an ongoing danger. The court distinguished cases where the original negligent act merely furnished the occasion for an 'unrelated act' to cause injury, noting that in this instance, a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the decedent’s actions in exiting her vehicle to assist the animal were a normal or foreseeable consequence of encountering a large, wandering animal on a rural roadway. Such conduct cannot, as a matter of law, be considered so extraordinary or unforeseeable as to break the chain of causation.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that proximate cause is predominantly a fact-specific inquiry, especially when intervening acts are involved, making it difficult to dismiss negligence claims on summary judgment. It clarifies that an intervening act will not automatically sever the chain of causation if it is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the defendant's initial, ongoing negligence, and the resulting harm is of the 'very same risk' that rendered the defendant negligent. The decision underscores the judiciary's deference to a factfinder in determining foreseeability in complex causal chains. Future cases will likely cite this precedent to argue that responsive actions taken by individuals in the face of an ongoing danger, even those involving leaving a position of relative safety, are foreseeable consequences that do not break the chain of causation.
