Hebert v. Enos
60 Mass. App. Ct. 817, 806 NE 2d 452 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action, a defendant's conduct is not the legal (proximate) cause of a plaintiff's harm if the harm that occurred was a 'highly extraordinary' and unforeseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.
Facts:
- Carl Enos asked his neighbor, William Hebert, to water his flowers while he was away on vacation.
- Prior to leaving, Enos performed repairs on his second-floor toilet.
- While Enos was on vacation, the toilet he had repaired failed, causing water to flow unregulated and flood the house over several days.
- On July 4, 2000, Hebert went to water the flowers as requested.
- When Hebert held the garden hose and touched the outdoor metal water faucet on Enos's house, he received a massive electric shock that caused severe injuries.
- An expert engineer concluded that the floodwater compromised the insulation on electrical wires, which energized the home's water piping system.
- A plumber later discovered a cheap, out-of-place plastic component in the toilet tank, which he identified as the cause of the flood.
Procedural Posture:
- William Hebert and his wife sued Carl Enos in Massachusetts Superior Court (a trial court) for negligence and loss of consortium.
- Enos filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing his alleged negligence was not the legal cause of Hebert's injuries.
- The Superior Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of Enos.
- The plaintiffs, the Heberts, appealed the trial court's decision to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a severe electric shock to a neighbor touching an outdoor water faucet a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a homeowner's negligent repair of a second-floor toilet that caused the house to flood?
Opinions:
Majority - Kafker, J.
No. The severe electric shock injury sustained by Hebert was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Enos's negligent toilet repair. For negligence liability to attach, the harm must be within the 'range of reasonable apprehension.' The court found that while some harms from a flooding toilet are foreseeable, such as water damage or a slip and fall, the electrocution of a person touching an outdoor faucet is a 'highly extraordinary' consequence. Citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 435(2), the court explained that conduct is not a legal cause of harm where it appears highly extraordinary that it should have brought about that harm. The court concluded that policy and pragmatic judgment must limit the scope of foreseeability, and this accident fell well beyond those limits.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical role of foreseeability in limiting the scope of proximate cause in negligence law. It establishes that even if a defendant's negligence is a direct 'but-for' cause of an injury, liability does not attach if the manner of the harm is bizarre or 'highly extraordinary.' The decision reinforces the court's function as a gatekeeper, able to decide as a matter of law that certain freak accidents are too remote to be compensable in tort. This precedent helps define the boundaries of duty by linking it to the general character of the risk created, preventing liability from extending to every conceivable, however improbable, consequence of a negligent act.
Unlock the full brief for Hebert v. Enos