Perry v. . Rochester Lime Co.
1916 N.Y. LEXIS 798, 113 N.E. 529, 219 N.Y. 60 (1916)
Rule of Law:
Even if an act is unlawful, a defendant is not liable for injuries that are not the proximate result of that act; rather, liability extends only to consequences that a reasonably prudent person ought to have foreseen, and a series of unexpected, intervening causes can break the chain of proximate causation.
Facts:
- The defendant stored a chest of nitroglycerin caps, used for exploding dynamite, on public land next to the Erie Canal in Rochester, New York, in violation of a city ordinance.
- The chest, which was usually kept closed and locked, was left open on Sunday, November 12, 1911.
- Thirteen-year-old John McGuire and twelve-year-old Archie Clark took one of the wooden boxes containing many smaller tin boxes of blasting caps from the open chest.
- The boys hid the box, emptied most of the tin boxes into the larger wooden box, and took it home, approximately half a mile from the defendant's warehouse, where they hid it in a barn.
- The next day, after school, Mrs. Perry saw McGuire and Clark retrieve the box from the barn and walk off with it, followed by her eight-year-old son.
- A few minutes later, an explosion occurred, killing John McGuire, Archie Clark, and the Perry boy.
Procedural Posture:
- An action was initiated by Perry (plaintiff) against the defendant in a trial court for the death of the Perry boy.
- The trial court rendered a judgment, implicitly in favor of the defendant.
- Perry appealed the trial court's judgment to the New York Court of Appeals.
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 the unlawful storage of dangerous explosives the proximate cause of a child's death when the explosives were stolen by other children from a concealed location and subsequently exploded at a remote site, breaking the chain of foreseeability?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, J.
No, the unlawful storage of dangerous explosives does not constitute the proximate cause of a child's death when the explosives were stolen by other children and exploded remotely, because the intervening theft and subsequent events were not reasonably foreseeable. The court acknowledged that the defendant was a wrongdoer by storing explosives in a public place and in violation of an ordinance. However, liability only extends to 'those consequences that ought to have been foreseen by a reasonably prudent man.' The court found that the specific chain of events leading to Perry's death was not reasonably foreseeable. The caps were not exposed to view but hidden within wooden boxes, reducing the likelihood of impulsive play. The boys' act of stealing the box, carrying it a half-mile away, and causing an explosion the next day constituted a 'series of new and unexpected causes' that intervened, breaking the chain of causation. The court distinguished this case from others where the dangerous item was exposed, proximity in time and place was greater, or the defendant intentionally put the implement in incompetent hands, thereby making the resulting harm more foreseeable. The court emphasized that the 'remoteness of the relation controls our judgment.'
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of proximate cause in negligence actions, particularly when intervening acts occur. It establishes that even an unlawful act does not automatically create liability for all subsequent harm; the harm must be a foreseeable consequence of the initial wrong. The ruling reinforces that criminal or wrongful acts by third parties can break the chain of causation if those acts are not within the range of reasonable expectation, thereby shielding the original wrongdoer from liability. Future cases would heavily rely on the 'foreseeability' of intervening events to determine proximate cause, especially in instances involving attractive nuisances or dangerous instrumentalities.
