Johnson v. Kosmos Portland Cement Co.
1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4047, 64 F.2d 193 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A negligent act that creates a dangerous condition is the proximate cause of an injury if a generally injurious result was foreseeable, even if the specific intervening force that triggered the injury was not foreseeable.
Facts:
- Kosmos Portland Cement Company owned a 750-ton combination oil and rock barge.
- The cement company had previously used the barge for oil but failed to properly clean its hold, allowing explosive gases to accumulate.
- The company engaged Kleinsteuber Boiler Works to make alterations on the barge.
- Wilberding and Sauer, employees of Kleinsteuber, were assigned to work on the barge.
- While Wilberding and Sauer were on the barge, a thunderstorm occurred.
- A bolt of lightning struck the barge, igniting the accumulated gases.
- The resulting explosion killed everyone on board, including Wilberding and Sauer.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representatives of Wilberding and Sauer filed libels in personam in admiralty in the District Court against Kosmos Portland Cement Company to recover for wrongful death.
- The District Court (trial court) found that the cement company was negligent in failing to clean the barge of explosive gases.
- The District Court also found that the explosion was caused by a lightning bolt, which it determined was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the company's negligence.
- Based on this lack of foreseeability, the District Court ruled that the libelants could not recover and entered a decree in favor of the cement company.
- The libelants, including Johnson and Sauer, appealed the District Court's legal conclusion on proximate cause to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 negligence in creating a dangerous condition constitute the proximate cause of an injury when the immediate trigger for that injury is a natural event, such as a lightning strike, that the defendant could not have specifically foreseen?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, Circuit Judge
Yes, the defendant's negligence constitutes the proximate cause of the injury. When a defendant's negligence is a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, liability attaches if a generally injurious result was foreseeable, regardless of whether the defendant foresaw the precise manner in which the injury occurred. The court reasoned that the cement company's failure to remove the explosive gases created a continuous menace. While the lightning was an intervening force, it was not a self-operating cause; it required the pre-existing negligent condition (the gases) to cause the harm. The foreseeability test does not require anticipation of the specific means of injury (the lightning), but only the anticipation of a generally injurious result (an explosion). Because an explosion from some source was a foreseeable danger of leaving gases in the barge, the company's negligence was the proximate cause of the deaths.
Dissenting - Moorman, Circuit Judge
No, the defendant's negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury. The defendant's negligence became remote because a new, outside force—the lightning—intervened and caused the explosion. For the defendant's negligence to be the proximate cause, the intervention of this new force must have been foreseeable. A lightning strike is not a foreseeable event that a person of reasonable foresight could anticipate as a likely trigger for the dormant dangerous condition. Therefore, the causal chain was broken, and the defendant's negligence was not the proximate cause of the deaths.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the doctrine of proximate cause, particularly concerning intervening forces. It establishes the principle that foreseeability relates to the general type of harm, not the specific manner in which it occurs. This broadens the scope of liability for defendants who create inherently dangerous conditions, preventing them from using a 'freak accident' or an unforeseeable 'act of God' as a shield against liability when their negligence was a substantial factor in the resulting harm. The ruling solidifies the 'substantial factor' test and diminishes the importance of the specific chain of events, so long as the general outcome was within the realm of reasonable foresight.
