Kingston v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1927 · Torts

Tortscausationconcurrent causessubstantial factorfireproximate causeconcurrent causesmultiple sufficient causes

Facts

The jury found that two separate fires united 940 feet north of the plaintiff's property and the united fire then destroyed the property. The court concluded that the northeast fire was set by sparks from the defendant's locomotive and that this fire was a proximate cause of the loss. The court also concluded that the northwest fire was a proximate cause of the loss, but its origin was unknown and not shown to have been caused by the defendant. Either fire alone would have destroyed the property in the absence of the other.

Issue

Whether a railroad that negligently set one fire is liable for the entire destruction of property when that fire united with another independent fire of unknown origin, where both fires were proximate causes of the loss and either would have caused the destruction alone. More specifically, the question was whether the defendant escapes liability merely because the origin of the other fire was not identified.

Rule

Where two separate and independent fires concur in producing a single loss, and each fire is a proximate cause that would have produced the damage regardless of the other, a responsible wrongdoer is liable for the entire loss when the other fire is attributable, or reasonably inferable to be attributable, to human agency. The plaintiff need not specifically identify the origin of both fires; if the defendant seeks to avoid liability on the ground that the other fire had an irresponsible natural origin or was a superseding fire of much greater proportions, the burden is on the defendant to show that defense.

🔒

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 rural Wisconsin near Eau Claire, a freight operator, North Valley Rail Lines, negligently ignited a grass fire along its tracks. A second brush fire of unknown origin, small in size and with no sign of lightning or other natural cause, merged with the first before reaching Maya Ortiz's storage shed; either fire alone would have destroyed the shed.

If Maya sues North Valley Rail Lines for the entire loss, which is the best result?

Explanation. When two separate fires concur to produce a single indivisible loss, and each is a proximate cause that would have produced the damage regardless of the other, a responsible wrongdoer is liable for the whole loss if the other fire is reasonably inferable to be of human origin. The plaintiff need not identify the specific originator of the other fire. Here, the second fire was small, recent, and unconnected to natural phenomena, so the rail operator remains liable for the entire destruction. (Derived from Kingston v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. (1927).)