McCahill v. New York Transportation Co.
94 N.E. 616 (1911)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A negligent actor is liable for the full extent of the harm caused, including death, even if the harm is exacerbated or hastened by the victim's pre-existing physical vulnerability or disease.
Facts:
- The decedent had a pre-existing alcoholic condition.
- A taxicab owned by the appellant negligently struck the decedent in New York City.
- The impact threw the decedent approximately twenty feet, causing a broken thigh and an injured knee.
- He lost consciousness immediately and was transported to a hospital.
- At the hospital, the decedent developed delirium tremens.
- A physician testified that the physical injuries precipitated and hastened the attack of delirium tremens.
- The decedent died at the hospital two days after the accident as a result of the delirium tremens.
Procedural Posture:
- The representative of the decedent's estate sued the appellant taxicab company in a New York trial court.
- A jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The appellant taxicab company appealed the judgment against it to an intermediate appellate court.
- The appellant taxicab company then appealed the case to the New York Court of Appeals (the court issuing this opinion).
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 defendant's negligent act the proximate cause of a person's death when the injury precipitates a fatal attack of a pre-existing disease, even if that disease might have eventually resulted in death at a later time?
Opinions:
Majority - Hiscock, J.
Yes, a defendant's negligent act is the proximate cause of death in such circumstances. The court found that the negligent act directly set in motion the sequence of events which caused death at the time it occurred. A negligent person is responsible for the direct effects of their acts, even if those effects are more serious due to the victim's sickness or infirmity (the 'eggshell plaintiff' rule). Furthermore, one who has negligently hastened and prematurely caused death cannot escape responsibility even if the underlying disease probably would have resulted in death at a later time on its own.
Concurring - Vann, J.
Yes, the injuries were a proximate cause of death. The jury could properly find that the decedent would not have died when he did but for the injuries inflicted by the defendant's negligence. Even if the decedent had the seeds of a fatal disease, the injuries caused the disease to develop prematurely and result in death sooner than it otherwise would have. The acceleration of death is legally equivalent to causing death under both civil and criminal law, making the defendant responsible for the outcome.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'eggshell plaintiff' or 'eggshell skull' doctrine in American tort law. It establishes that a defendant must take their victim as they find them and cannot use the victim's pre-existing frailty or condition as a defense to limit liability. The decision clarifies that hastening a death is legally equivalent to causing it for the purposes of proximate cause. This precedent is crucial in personal injury and wrongful death cases, preventing defendants from arguing that a 'normal' person would not have suffered such severe consequences or that the victim would have died eventually anyway.
