Alexander v. Town of New Castle

Indiana Supreme Court · 1888 · Torts

TortsNegligenceMunicipal liabilityProximate causeproximate causeintervening causeindependent human agencymunicipal negligence

Facts

The plaintiff alleged that the town negligently permitted a pit or excavation in the side of one of its streets to remain open and uninclosed, and that he fell into it without fault on his part and was injured. The town's second answer alleged that after the plaintiff, acting as a special constable, arrested Heavenridge for gaming and was taking him to jail, Heavenridge seized the plaintiff and threw him into the pit in order to escape. The plaintiff demurred to that answer, arguing that the town's negligence remained the proximate cause of his injuries. There was also evidence tending to support the town's version at trial.

Issue

Whether the town could be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries from the open excavation when a third party, Heavenridge, independently seized the plaintiff and threw him into the pit. More specifically, the question was whether the town's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury or whether the third party's act broke the causal chain.

Rule

A negligent person or corporation is liable only to those injured by reason of that negligence, and the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury sued for. Where an independent responsible human agency intervenes and is the immediate cause of the injury, the original negligence is insulated and the original actor is not responsible for the injury as a matter of proximate cause.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dayton, Ohio, the city left a deep, unbarricaded trench beside a public sidewalk for several days. As Nina Ortiz walked past, Victor Sloan intentionally shoved her into the trench during an argument, causing serious injuries.

If Nina sues the city for negligence in leaving the trench unguarded, which is the best analysis under the governing rule?

Explanation. The rule is that negligence creates liability only when it is the proximate cause of the injury. When an independent responsible human agency intervenes and becomes the immediate cause of the harm, the earlier negligence is insulated and treated as a remote condition. Here, the city's unguarded trench merely furnished the occasion, while Victor's intentional act directly produced the injury.