Smithwick v. Hall & Upson Co.
21 A. 924, 59 Conn. 261, 12 L.R.A. 279 (1890)
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's act of disregarding a warning about specific, manifest dangers does not constitute contributory negligence barring recovery for injuries caused by an entirely different, unforeseeable danger resulting from the defendant's negligence, if the plaintiff's act was not negligent with respect to that specific danger and was merely a condition, not a proximate cause, of the injury.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a workman, was employed by the defendant to help store ice in a brick building.
- The plaintiff was stationed on a platform, 15 feet above the ground, with a protective railing along its west side, but the east side, beyond a door, was unguarded.
- The defendant's foreman explicitly instructed the plaintiff not to go onto the east end of the platform, stating it was 'not safe' due to its narrowness, unrailed condition, and risk of misstep or fall.
- Despite the foreman's orders and without sufficient reason, the plaintiff moved to the unguarded east end of the platform to work.
- A fellow workman also warned the plaintiff that the east end was 'not safe,' but the plaintiff remained there.
- While the plaintiff was working on the east end, the brick wall of the building above the platform unexpectedly collapsed due to the defendant's negligence.
- The falling bricks struck the plaintiff, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain serious injuries, most of which resulted from the fall.
- The plaintiff had no prior knowledge that the wall was unsafe or likely to fall, and no fault or negligence was attributed to him regarding the wall's condition.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant, likely in a trial court (referred to as the 'court below').
- The 'court below' (implicitly the Superior Court) found that the defendant's negligence caused or contributed to the plaintiff's injury, but awarded only nominal damages, implicitly concluding the plaintiff's conduct amounted to contributory negligence.
- The 'court below' reserved a general question for advice from the higher court (the court issuing this opinion) regarding whether the plaintiff was entitled to substantial damages or only nominal damages based on the facts found.
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 plaintiff's decision to work in an area contrary to a warning about specific, manifest dangers, when the injury sustained arises from an entirely different and unforeseeable danger caused by the defendant's negligence, constitute contributory negligence that bars the plaintiff's right to substantial damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobbance, J.
No, the plaintiff's conduct in disregarding the warning does not constitute contributory negligence that bars substantial damages when the injury resulted from an entirely different, unforeseeable danger caused by the defendant's negligence. The court reasoned that if the plaintiff’s injuries had resulted from the specific perils the foreman warned him about (e.g., misstep or fall due to the unguarded platform), then his conduct would have been contributory negligence. However, the injury was caused by the collapse of the brick wall, a source of danger of which the plaintiff had no knowledge and no reason to anticipate, and which was caused by the defendant's negligence. Negligence, and thus contributory negligence, presupposes a duty of taking care, which in turn presupposes knowledge or its legal equivalent of the danger. The plaintiff's act of moving to the east end was not negligent with respect to the unanticipated danger of the falling wall. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's position on the east end was merely a 'condition' of the injury, not a 'proximate cause.' To be a proximate cause, the negligent act must contribute to the happening of the event that caused the injury. The collapse of the wall was the direct cause, and the plaintiff's location, while perhaps increasing the severity of the fall, did not cause the wall to fall. The court cited Gray v. Scott, which similarly held that a warning about certain dangers does not bar recovery when death results from an unrelated, unforeseen danger caused by another's negligence.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of contributory negligence, establishing that a plaintiff's disregard of a warning only bars recovery if the injury arises from the specific dangers against which the warning was given. It reinforces the principle that contributory negligence requires both a negligent act by the plaintiff with respect to the specific risk that materializes and that this act be a proximate cause of the injury, not merely a condition that places the plaintiff in harm's way. This decision limits the scope of warnings and emphasizes the defendant's responsibility for unforeseeable harms stemming from their own negligence.
