Novak v. Continental Tire N. Am.
22 Cal.App.5th 189, 231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 324 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An original tortfeasor is not liable for harm sustained in a subsequent, independent accident, even if the first tortious act made the plaintiff more susceptible to the second injury, if the second accident was not a foreseeable consequence of the original negligence and was caused by a third party's superseding negligent act.
Facts:
- In 2005, a tire manufactured by Continental's predecessor blew out on a van in which 81-year-old Alex Novak was a passenger, causing a collision.
- As a result of injuries sustained in the 2005 accident, Novak required the use of a three-wheel motorized scooter for mobility.
- In November 2011, six years after the first accident, 87-year-old Novak was riding his scooter in a crosswalk.
- A car driven by Mea MD Abdul Quader failed to yield the right-of-way and collided with Novak's scooter.
- A police investigation determined that Quader was at fault for the 2011 accident for failing to yield.
- An expert opined that the scooter's stopping ability was substantially impaired compared to an able-bodied person walking.
- Novak sustained thoracic spine fractures in the scooter collision and died eight days later.
Procedural Posture:
- Alex Novak sued Continental Tire and Chi Tai in a trial court for product liability and negligence after the 2005 accident.
- A judgment was entered for the defendants in that initial lawsuit.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the defense judgment, finding trial errors.
- While the first case was pending, Paula J. Novak filed a separate wrongful death action against Continental and Tai after her father's death in 2011.
- In the wrongful death action, defendants Continental and Tai filed motions for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding no causal link between their conduct and Novak's death.
- Paula J. Novak, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeal.
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 alleged negligence, which caused an initial injury, constitute the proximate cause of a death resulting from a second, independent accident that occurred six years later, where the initial injury necessitated the use of a mobility device involved in the second accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollak, J.
No. A defendant's conduct does not constitute the proximate cause of a death when the death results from a second, independent, and unforeseeable accident caused by a third party's superseding negligence. The court distinguished between cause-in-fact, which it assumed existed, and proximate cause, which is a policy-based limitation on liability. The court found the connection between the defendants' failure to warn about tire degradation in 2005 and Novak's death from a scooter accident in 2011 was too attenuated, remote, and indirect to establish proximate cause. The second accident was not a foreseeable consequence of the initial negligence; rather, it was a 'highly extraordinary' result. The court concluded that the second driver's failure to yield the right-of-way was an independent, intervening act that constituted a superseding cause, breaking the chain of causation and absolving the original defendants of liability.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between cause-in-fact ('but for' causation) and the more restrictive doctrine of proximate cause. It illustrates that proximate cause acts as a legal and public policy tool to limit liability to consequences that are reasonably foreseeable and not completely severed by an independent, superseding event. The case establishes a strong precedent for defendants seeking to sever the causal chain when a long period of time and a third party's independent negligence separate their initial act from the ultimate harm. It will make it significantly harder for plaintiffs to succeed in cases built on a long and improbable sequence of events.
Unlock the full brief for Novak v. Continental Tire N. Am.