Lexplug logoLexplug

Tieder v. Little

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
502 So. 2d 923 (1987)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant's negligence can be the legal or proximate cause of an injury if the negligence was a cause-in-fact of the harm and the general type of harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligence, even if the exact sequence of events leading to the harm was bizarre and unforeseeable.


Facts:

  • Robert M. Little, an architect, designed a high brick wall supporting a concrete canopy at the entrance to Eaton Hall dormitory on the University of Miami campus.
  • The University of Miami had the wall constructed and maintained it, but it was built without adequate supports required by the applicable building code.
  • On January 7, 1983, two students attempted to clutch-start a car in the circular driveway in front of the dormitory.
  • The student behind the wheel lost control of the vehicle, which lurched over a curb, traveled across a lawn, and jumped onto an elevated walkway.
  • As Trudi Beth Tieder walked out the front door of the dormitory, the car struck her.
  • The car pinned Tieder against the brick wall, causing the entire wall to come off its foundation intact and collapse on top of her.
  • The Dade County Medical Examiner concluded that Tieder died as a result of the wall falling on her, not from the initial impact of the automobile alone.

Procedural Posture:

  • Sheila M. Tieder and Richard J. Tieder, as administrators of the decedent's estate, filed a wrongful death action in a Florida trial court against defendants Robert M. Little and the University of Miami.
  • Defendant Little filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against him.
  • Defendant University of Miami filed a motion for summary judgment.
  • The trial court granted both motions, concluding as a matter of law that the defendants' alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of the death.
  • The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's final order of dismissal and final summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Locked

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 the negligent design and construction of a brick wall constitute a proximate cause of a person's death when the wall collapses after being struck by an out-of-control vehicle in a bizarre and unforeseeable manner?


Opinions:

Majority - Hubbart, J.

Yes. The defendants' alleged negligence in designing and constructing the brick wall can be a proximate cause of the decedent's death. Proximate cause consists of two elements: causation-in-fact and foreseeability. First, the negligence was a cause-in-fact because 'but for' the wall's improper construction, which caused it to fall in one piece, the decedent would not have died. The medical examiner's opinion that the wall's collapse was the cause of death creates a jury question on this point. Second, the foreseeability requirement is also met. It is not necessary for the defendants to have foreseen the exact, bizarre sequence of events involving the car. It is only necessary that the general type of harm—the collapse of a negligently constructed wall causing injury or death—was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendants' negligence. The court distinguished this case from others like Schatz v. 7-Eleven, Inc. by classifying them as 'no-negligence' cases, where the defendant had no duty to guard against a freakish occurrence, whereas here, the defendants' negligence in constructing the wall is assumed for the purpose of the appeal.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that foreseeability in proximate cause analysis relates to the general type of harm, not the specific, precipitating event. It clarifies that a defendant who creates a dangerous condition through negligence cannot escape liability merely because the condition was exposed by a bizarre or unforeseeable intervening act. The case is significant for separating the analysis of initial negligence (duty and breach) from the analysis of causation. It holds that once negligence is established (e.g., building a faulty wall), the subsequent causal chain is not automatically broken by an unforeseeable event if the resulting harm (the wall collapsing on someone) is within the scope of the risk created by the original negligence.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Tieder v. Little (1987) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Tieder v. Little