Doe v. Manheimer

Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989 · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate CauseIntervening Criminal ActsPublic NuisanceStatutory Negligenceproximate causesubstantial factor

Facts

The plaintiff, a meter reader, was approached on a public street by a stranger with a gun, forced across a vacant lot, and taken onto the defendant's property, where dense sumac bushes and tall grass shielded an area from view. There the assailant raped and assaulted her for about thirty minutes; he had brought items such as rope and rubber gloves, suggesting planning. The plaintiff claimed the defendant negligently failed to remove overgrown vegetation and debris despite housing code notices, and that the concealed area in a high-crime neighborhood enabled the assault and its duration. A jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiff, but the trial court set it aside on the ground that the overgrowth was not a substantial factor in causing her injuries.

Issue

Whether the defendant landowner's maintenance of overgrown vegetation and debris that concealed part of his property from public view was, as a matter of law, a proximate cause of the plaintiff's rape by an unknown third party. More specifically, the question was whether the intentional criminal assault fell within the scope of the risk created by the defendant's conduct.

Rule

Proximate cause requires more than cause in fact; the defendant's conduct must be a substantial factor in producing the harm, meaning the harm actually suffered must be of the same general nature as the foreseeable risk created by the defendant's negligence. When a third party intentionally or criminally causes the harm, the defendant is not relieved of liability only if that criminal act and resulting harm were within the scope of the risk created by the defendant's conduct under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 442B.

🔒

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 Hartford, Owen Pike owns a vacant parcel beside a public sidewalk. He ignores repeated city notices to remove shoulder-high weeds and scattered junk, and one evening a stranger pulls Mara Lin from the sidewalk behind the weeds and assaults her there, out of public view.

If Mara sues Owen for negligence, what is the strongest argument for Owen on proximate cause under the controlling rule?

Explanation. The majority held that cause in fact alone is insufficient. Even if the vegetation and debris furnished concealment and thus affected where the assault occurred, an intentional violent assault by a stranger was not within the scope of the risk created by maintaining overgrown vegetation and debris. Therefore proximate cause may fail as a matter of law.