Sanders v. American Body Armor and Equipment, Inc.
652 So.2d 883 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When two or more distinct acts of negligence operate concurrently to cause a single indivisible injury, and either act would have been sufficient on its own to cause the entire injury, both are considered a proximate cause of the harm. A defendant cannot be absolved of liability on the ground that the identical harm would have occurred from the other concurrent cause.
Facts:
- Warren Sanders was a law enforcement officer for the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.
- The Sheriff's Office specified and purchased a "buttfit" style bulletproof vest from American Body Armor and Equipment, Inc. (Armor) for its officers.
- The "buttfit" style vest consisted of front and back panels that abutted at the sides, leaving a gap in protection where the panels joined.
- On July 26, 1990, while wearing the vest during an undercover operation, Sanders was shot fifteen times.
- Sanders sustained two fatal bullet wounds inflicted "split seconds" apart.
- One fatal bullet entered his abdomen at a point below the area covered by the vest.
- The other fatal bullet entered his chest through the unprotected gap at the side abutment area of the vest.
Procedural Posture:
- Adriana Sanders, representing the Estate of Warren C. Sanders, sued American Body Armor and Equipment, Inc. in a Florida trial court for negligence based on a failure to warn.
- A jury trial was held, resulting in a verdict for the estate.
- Following the verdict, the defendant, Armor, made a reserved motion for a directed verdict.
- The trial court judge granted Armor's motion for a directed verdict, setting aside the jury's verdict, and, in the alternative, granted a new trial.
- The estate (Appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
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 negligence absolved of being a proximate cause of a single, indivisible injury when another concurrent, independently sufficient cause also contributes to that same injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Lawrence, Judge
No. A defendant's negligence is not absolved of being a proximate cause of an injury simply because another concurrent, independently sufficient cause also contributed to the same indivisible injury. The court disapproved of the trial court's reasoning that the bullet entering the vest's gap was not a proximate cause of death because Sanders would have died anyway from the other fatal wound to his abdomen. Citing Prosser and precedent, the court explained that the 'but for' test of causation fails in situations with two concurrent causes where either would have been sufficient to cause the identical result. In such cases, both causes are deemed a proximate cause to prevent a scenario where both negligent parties could escape liability. The two fatal bullet wounds were concurrent causes of the single, indivisible injury of Sanders' death. However, the court ultimately affirmed the directed verdict for Armor on separate grounds, holding that the absence of protection at the sides of the vest was an open and obvious condition for which the manufacturer had no legal duty to warn.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial clarification of the concurrent cause doctrine in Florida tort law, specifically addressing the scenario of two independently sufficient causes. It solidifies the principle that the 'but for' test for causation is inapplicable in such circumstances, reinforcing the 'substantial factor' test instead. The decision prevents defendants from using a 'blame game' defense where each points to the other's conduct as the 'real' cause of an indivisible injury. This precedent is significant for any tort case involving multiple defendants or causal factors, ensuring that a party whose negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm cannot escape liability merely because the harm was over-determined.
Unlock the full brief for Sanders v. American Body Armor and Equipment, Inc.