Parvi v. City of Kingston
1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11452, 51 A.D.2d 846, 380 N.Y.S.2d 781 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's conduct that furnishes the condition for an injury is not the proximate cause of that injury if the plaintiff's own unforeseeable, independent actions intervene to bring about the harm. This new, independent cause supersedes the original remote cause, breaking the chain of legal causation.
Facts:
- On the night of May 28, 1972, City of Kingston police officers responded to a disturbance call involving several men, including Parvi and Dixie Dugan, who were intoxicated and arguing.
- The officers gave Parvi and Dugan the choice to either leave the area or be arrested.
- After the men stated they had nowhere to go, the officers drove them to a location outside city limits known as Coleman Hill, which had shelters.
- Sometime after being dropped off, Parvi and Dugan wandered approximately 350 feet from the shelters.
- They climbed over a guardrail and walked onto the New York State Thruway.
- Both men were struck by a vehicle driven by David Darling; Dugan was killed and Parvi sustained serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Parvi (plaintiff) commenced an action in the Supreme Court, Ulster County (trial court) against the City of Kingston, alleging negligence and false imprisonment.
- Parvi also sued David Darling, the driver of the vehicle, for negligence in the same action.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case at trial, the court dismissed the complaint against both the City of Kingston and David Darling.
- Parvi did not appeal the dismissal of his action against Darling.
- Parvi appealed the dismissal of his causes of action against the City of Kingston to the Appellate Division of the Supreme 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 police officer's act of leaving an intoxicated person in a location over 300 feet from a highway constitute a proximate cause of injuries the person sustains after voluntarily wandering onto that highway, or is the person's own action an unforeseeable, intervening cause that severs liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Koreman, Main and Reynolds, JJ.
No. The police officers' actions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries because the plaintiff's own actions constituted an unforeseeable, superseding cause. The court reasoned that the risk of two adult men, even if intoxicated, walking over 350 feet, climbing a guardrail, and entering a highway was not reasonably foreseeable. The police officers' action of leaving the men at Coleman Hill was a remote cause (causa sine qua non) that merely created the condition for the accident. The proximate cause (causa causans) was the plaintiff's own voluntary intoxication and subsequent negligence. Regarding the false imprisonment claim, the court found the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements because his testimony was unreliable, and he admitted he had no actual recollection of the events, thereby failing to prove a lack of consent.
Dissenting - Herlihy, P. J. and Greenblott, J.
Yes. A jury could have rationally found that the police officers' actions were a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The dissent argued that once the officers took the intoxicated men into their vehicle, they assumed a duty to use due care for their safety. Leaving them in an isolated location near a major highway while they were unable to care for themselves could be found by a jury to be a breach of that duty. It was not unforeseeable as a matter of law that intoxicated individuals might wander into danger. The dissent also argued that there were sufficient questions of fact regarding the false imprisonment claim—including the plaintiff's testimony that he was ordered into the car and the presumption of unlawfulness for a warrantless detainment—to warrant sending the case to a jury.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional tort law principles of proximate cause and foreseeability, particularly the doctrine of superseding intervening cause. It establishes that a plaintiff's own voluntary and unforeseeable actions can sever the causal link between a defendant's initial negligence and the ultimate harm, even where the defendant's action created the opportunity for that harm. The case is a key example of how courts may decline to extend a duty of care when an injury is deemed too remote from the initial negligent act. The dissent, however, reflects a competing view that assuming control over a vulnerable person creates a special duty of care, making subsequent harm more foreseeable.
