Brower v. New York Central Railroad Co.

New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate CauseIntervening CauseDamagesgrade-crossing collisionproximate causeintervening cause

Facts

Plaintiff's driver was crossing at a grade crossing when a collision occurred, and the court stated that negligence and contributory negligence were for the jury. The collision killed the horse, destroyed the wagon, and scattered the wagon's contents, including empty barrels, a keg of cider, and a blanket. The driver, who was alone in charge of the property, was so stunned that he was found in a fit immediately after the accident and could not protect the goods. People at the scene probably stole the scattered property, while two railroad detectives on the freight train did nothing to protect it.

Issue

When a defendant's negligence in a collision renders the plaintiff's driver incapable of protecting scattered property, may the defendant be held liable for the value of property then taken by thieves at the scene? More specifically, does the thieves' conduct break the chain of proximate causation as an intervening cause?

Rule

A defendant is not relieved of liability by a third person's intervening act if the defendant's negligence remains an effective cause of the loss and the third person's act was a natural and probable consequence that ought to have been foreseen. Whether an intervening act cuts off liability, like proximate cause generally, is ordinarily a question for the jury.

🔒

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 Newark, Jordan Pike was driving a van for Harbor Elm Produce when a negligently operated locomotive struck the van at a crossing. Jordan was knocked unconscious, and crates of peaches spilled onto a crowded street; within minutes, bystanders carried away most of the fruit.

If Harbor Elm sues the railroad for the value of the missing peaches, what is the strongest argument that the railroad remains liable for that loss?

Explanation. The majority rule is that an original wrongdoer is not relieved of liability when a third party's intervening act is a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's negligence and the defendant's negligence remains an effective cause of the loss. Here, the collision immediately disabled the custodian and left portable goods exposed in a city street, making the disappearance of the goods foreseeable. The majority also rejected the idea that such loss cannot be treated as destruction for purposes of recovery. (Derived from Brower v. New York Central Railroad Co. (n.d.).)