Watson v. Ky. & Ind. Bridge & Ry Co.
1910 Ky. LEXIS 606, 126 S.W. 146, 137 Ky. 619 (1910)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An intervening act will not relieve a negligent party of liability if the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable; however, a malicious or criminal intervening act, if not reasonably foreseeable, may break the chain of causation, and the question of proximate cause and the nature of an intervening act are generally questions for the jury.
Facts:
- Union Tank Line Company owned a tank car filled with gasoline.
- Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & Railroad Company was transporting the tank car in a populous section of Louisville.
- The tank car derailed between Walnut and Madison streets, breaking its discharge pipe and valve, causing a large quantity of gasoline to escape onto the street and into gutters.
- From the escaping gasoline, a highly combustible gas permeated the atmosphere a distance of 500-600 feet from the derailment site for several hours.
- Approximately four hours after the derailment, Charles Duerr struck a match to light a cigar while standing about a square away from the derailed car.
- The match came into contact with the gas, causing an explosion that threw John Watson from his bed, severely injuring him and damaging his house.
- There was conflicting evidence regarding the condition of the railroad track, the Bridge & Railroad Company's employees' actions to stop the gasoline flow or warn residents, and Duerr's intent (whether he lit the match inadvertently/negligently or maliciously).
Procedural Posture:
- John Watson instituted an action in the trial court (court below) against Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & Railroad Company, Southern Railway Company, Southern Railway Company in Kentucky, and Union Tank Line Company, seeking $20,000 damages for personal injuries.
- At the conclusion of all evidence, Watson dismissed the action without prejudice as to Southern Railway Company and Southern Railway Company in Kentucky.
- Appellees Bridge & Railroad Company and Union Tank Line Company moved the court for a peremptory instruction (a directed verdict) in their favor.
- The trial court initially overruled the motion but sustained it after all evidence was introduced.
- The jury, in obedience to the peremptory instruction, returned a verdict in favor of the appellees (Bridge & Railroad Company and Union Tank Line Company).
- Judgment was entered in favor of appellees for costs.
- Watson, dissatisfied with the judgment and the refusal of the circuit court to grant a new trial, appealed to the Kentucky 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:
Did the trial court err in granting a peremptory instruction for the Bridge & Railroad Company by determining as a matter of law that the malicious act of a third party in lighting a match, rather than the railroad's alleged negligence, was the sole proximate cause of the explosion, thereby invading the province of the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Settle
Yes, the trial court erred in granting a peremptory instruction for the Bridge & Railroad Company because the question of proximate cause, including the foreseeability and nature of an intervening act, is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury, not a matter of law for the court, when there is conflicting evidence. The court reasoned that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could have found the Bridge & Railroad Company negligent, either in failing to maintain its roadbed and track, negligently handling the car after derailment, or failing to warn residents. If the gas's presence was due to the railroad's negligence, the probable consequence of it coming into contact with fire (e.g., someone lighting a match for a cigar) was "too plain a proposition to admit of doubt." Such an inadvertent or negligent act by Duerr would not necessarily be an efficient, superseding cause, as it was a reasonably foreseeable intervening act that would not break the chain of causation. However, the court held that if Duerr's act was malicious and intended to cause the explosion, the railroad would likely not be responsible, as a party is not generally bound to anticipate criminal or wanton acts of others. Since there was conflicting evidence regarding Duerr's intent (whether inadvertent/negligent or wanton/malicious), it was the jury's province to determine this crucial fact. The trial court invaded the jury's role by declaring Duerr's act was done purposely and wantonly as a matter of law. The court affirmed the peremptory instruction for Union Tank Line Company because no evidence was presented to show its tank car was defective prior to the derailment, indicating the derailment itself caused the damage, for which Union Tank Line Company was not responsible.
Analysis:
This case is significant for reaffirming the principle that the determination of proximate cause, particularly when an intervening act contributes to an injury, is a question of fact generally reserved for the jury. It clarifies that a defendant's liability for negligence is not automatically negated by an intervening act if that act was reasonably foreseeable. The ruling also carves out an important distinction: while foreseeable negligent intervening acts may not break causation, malicious or criminal acts, if truly unanticipated, often will, thereby limiting the scope of a negligent party's liability for egregious third-party misconduct. This case provides a foundational understanding for future cases on intervening and superseding causes in tort law.
