Heitsch v. Hampton
167 Mich. App. 629, 423 N.W.2d 297 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public utility generally does not owe a duty of reasonable care to protect its customers from unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties, and such acts typically constitute a superseding cause that severs the chain of proximate causation from the utility's prior negligence, absent extraordinary circumstances known to the utility.
Facts:
- William J. Heitsch, a 90-year-old man in good health, lived alone in his home.
- Five days before November 28, 1982, Michigan Bell Telephone Company disconnected Heitsch’s telephone service without notice or explanation.
- The disconnection occurred due to Michigan Bell receiving an order to remove service for the same number, but in a different area code, indicating an error.
- A 'default' recording on Heitsch's line informed callers, 'The number you have reached is being checked for trouble. Please try your call again later,' leading Heitsch and his family to believe service would be restored.
- During the night of November 28, 1982, Charles Hampton and Darrin Ortega broke into Heitsch's home after previously breaking a window to see if anyone would respond.
- Hampton and Ortega beat Heitsch about the head and torso with a nightstick during the break-in.
- Heitsch subsequently dragged himself to the kitchen, where his only telephone was located, and bled to death, unable to summon assistance due to the disconnected service.
- Hampton and Ortega were later convicted of murder and manslaughter, respectively.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Heitsch's estate) filed a wrongful death action against defendant Michigan Bell Telephone Company in the trial court.
- Following discovery, defendant Michigan Bell moved for summary disposition.
- The trial court granted Michigan Bell's motion for summary disposition, ruling that the criminal conduct of Hampton and Ortega was the superseding cause of Heitsch's death, thereby relieving Michigan Bell of proximate causation for its alleged negligence.
- Plaintiffs appealed as of right to the Court of Appeals of Michigan (the current 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:
Does a public utility's negligent disconnection of telephone service create a duty to protect a customer from the unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties, or are such criminal acts a superseding cause relieving the utility of liability for the customer's death?
Opinions:
Majority - MacKenzie, P.J.
No, a public utility's negligent disconnection of telephone service does not create a duty to protect a customer from the unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties, as such acts are generally considered a superseding cause relieving the utility of liability. The court framed the 'real issue' not as proximate causation but as whether any duty of reasonable care owed by defendant included protecting the decedent from criminal acts of third parties. Relying on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 448, the court affirmed that an intentional tort or crime by a third person is a superseding cause unless the actor (defendant) realized or should have realized the likelihood of such a crime. The court emphasized that generally, a defendant is not liable for unforeseeable intentional or criminal acts. As a matter of policy, the court declined to extend a utility's duty that far, citing the lack of control a utility has over crime, similar to a merchant-customer relationship. Michigan Bell had no specific knowledge that Heitsch was elderly, lived alone, or was in a high crime area, which would constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' implying a special need for uninterrupted service. The court concluded that, absent such knowledge, a public utility cannot be made an insurer of its customers' well-being against criminal conduct, noting that people are not normally expected to anticipate malicious criminal acts.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of a public utility's duty of care and the application of the superseding cause doctrine in Michigan. By re-framing the issue from proximate cause to the scope of duty, the court reinforces that foreseeability is a crucial element for establishing a duty, especially when intervening criminal acts are involved. The decision limits potential liability for utilities, preventing them from becoming de facto insurers against all harms that might follow a negligent act, particularly those arising from unforeseeable criminal conduct. This ruling serves as a precedent affirming that defendants are generally not liable for the independent, unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties unless they had specific knowledge or a special relationship indicating a heightened risk.
