Howard v. Spradlin
562 S. W.3d 281 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual is not liable for negligence when their conduct, which is not inherently dangerous, merely creates a condition that allows for a third party's unforeseeable criminal act to cause harm. Such an unforeseeable criminal act constitutes a superseding cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation.
Facts:
- Dan and Sherolyn Howard owned a commercial property leased by Bob and Diane Castle, who operated the Family Food grocery store.
- On the evening of December 26, 2015, after the store had closed, Leslie Matthew Spradlin parked his truck in the store's parking lot.
- Spradlin left a firearm, two ammo clips, and a tool box inside the truck when he departed.
- The property had no 'no trespassing' or 'no parking' signs, and the Castles, the property's possessors, had a custom of allowing people to park in the lot after hours without objection.
- During the night, an unknown third party allegedly broke into Spradlin's truck, stole the items inside, and then set the truck on fire.
- The fire from the truck spread to the eaves of the grocery store, which resulted in the complete destruction of the building.
Procedural Posture:
- Dan and Sherolyn Howard sued Leslie Matthew Spradlin in the Lawrence Circuit Court (trial court) for negligence.
- Spradlin filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Spradlin, dismissing the Howards' claim.
- The Howards, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
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 unknown third party's criminal act of setting fire to a legally parked truck constitute a superseding cause that relieves the truck's owner of liability for the resulting destruction of an adjacent building?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, Judge
Yes, an unknown third party's criminal act of setting fire to a legally parked truck is a superseding cause that relieves the owner of liability. First, the court determined that Spradlin was not a trespasser but a licensee, as he had implied permission to park on the property based on past custom and the lack of prohibitive signage. Second, the court found Spradlin did not breach any duty of reasonable care, as parking a truck in a permitted location is not an inherently negligent or risky act. The central holding is that the criminal act of arson by the unknown third party was an unforeseeable, intervening event that broke the chain of proximate causation. The court distinguished this case from situations where the initial act creates a foreseeable hazard (like piling flammable trash next to a building). Spradlin's action merely created a condition upon which the third party acted, and it was the unforeseeable criminal act, not the parking of the truck, that was the legal cause of the damage.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the doctrine of superseding cause as a significant limitation on liability in negligence actions involving third-party criminal conduct. The decision clarifies that foreseeability is paramount; for an initial actor to be held liable, their conduct must have created a recognizable and probable risk of the specific harm that occurred, including the criminal intervention. By distinguishing between conduct that creates a mere 'condition' and conduct that creates a foreseeable 'hazard,' the court limits the scope of liability for individuals whose otherwise non-negligent actions are followed by unpredictable criminal acts. This precedent serves to protect defendants from liability where their connection to the ultimate harm is too attenuated due to an extraordinary and unforeseeable intervening crime.
