Marshall v. Nugent
222 F.2d 604 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A negligent actor is liable for harm resulting from the foreseeable, intervening acts of a third party when the actor's original negligence created a dangerous situation that was not yet resolved. The original negligent act is considered a proximate cause if the subsequent harm was within the scope of the risk created by that act.
Facts:
- A Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. truck, driven by its employee Prince, was proceeding north on a slippery, snow-covered highway.
- Coming over the crest of a hill on a banked curve, Prince drove on the wrong side of the road, or "cut the corner."
- To avoid a head-on collision, Walter Harriman, who was driving south with Frank Marshall as a passenger, swerved his Chevrolet off the road into a snowbank.
- Prince stopped his truck on the highway opposite the disabled Chevrolet, blocking the northbound lane in a 'blind spot' for traffic coming over the hill.
- At Prince's suggestion that someone warn oncoming traffic, Marshall began walking up the hill.
- A car driven by Robert Nugent came over the crest, saw the blocked lane, swerved to the left, went into a skid, and struck and severely injured Marshall.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Marshall filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court against Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., and Robert Nugent as joint tortfeasors.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict for Marshall against Socony for $25,000.
- The jury also returned a verdict in favor of the co-defendant, Nugent.
- The district court entered judgments consistent with the jury's verdicts.
- Socony appealed the judgment against it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- Marshall separately appealed the judgment in favor of Nugent to the same 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 defendant's negligence constitute the proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries when that negligence forced the plaintiff's car off the road, and the plaintiff was subsequently struck by a third party's vehicle while attempting to warn traffic about the hazardous situation created by the initial negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Magruder, Chief Judge
Yes. A defendant whose negligence causes a traffic obstruction can be held legally liable for subsequent injuries caused by an oncoming motorist if the initial negligence created a foreseeable risk of such an event. The court reasoned that 'proximate cause' does not require the defendant's negligent act to be the immediate cause of the injury. Instead, liability extends to harmful consequences that result from the operation of a risk that made the defendant's conduct negligent in the first place. Here, the risks created by Prince's negligence—both cutting the corner and stopping in a dangerous location—were not over once the initial collision was avoided. The resulting 'traffic mix-up' created a continuing danger, and it was foreseeable that another driver (Nugent), reacting to the obstruction, could injure someone like Marshall who was on the highway as a direct result of the situation. Therefore, the causal chain was not broken, and the issue was properly left for the jury to decide.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in the study of proximate cause, illustrating the 'scope of the risk' or 'risk rule' principle. It establishes that a defendant's liability is not automatically severed by an intervening act, even a negligent one, if that act was a foreseeable consequence of the dangerous condition the defendant created. The decision emphasizes that proximate cause is a fact-intensive inquiry, often best left to a jury, to determine whether the resulting harm is sufficiently connected to the original negligent act to justify imposing liability. For future cases, it reinforces that courts will look beyond the immediate cause of an injury to analyze the entire sequence of events initiated by a defendant's negligence.
Unlock the full brief for Marshall v. Nugent