Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez

Supreme Court of Texas · Torts

TortsCausationProximate CauseProducing CauseSummary JudgmentProducts LiabilityNegligencecausation

Facts

Perez, a Texas Highway Department worker, was driving a truck pulling a flashing arrow sign manufactured by Lear Siegler during a highway sweeping operation. Plaintiffs presented evidence that the sign had malfunctioned before because wire connections worked loose and argued Perez stopped his truck on the roadway to fix that malfunction on the day of the accident. While Perez was near the sign, Lerma, who had fallen asleep at the wheel, struck the sign, which then struck Perez and caused fatal injuries. Lear Siegler presented uncontradicted eyewitness evidence that the sign was working properly when traffic, including Lerma's van, approached.

Issue

Whether, assuming the sign malfunctioned and caused Perez to stop and place himself near the sign, that defect was a legal cause of Perez's injuries and death. More specifically, the question was whether Lear Siegler negated causation as a matter of law in the summary judgment proceeding because any connection between the defect and the accident was too remote.

Rule

Negligent conduct causes harm only if, in a natural and continuous sequence, it produces the event and without it the event would not have occurred; however, but-for causation alone is insufficient. To constitute legal cause, the conduct must also be a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, and when the alleged defect merely places the plaintiff at a particular place and time in circumstances too attenuated from the defendant's conduct, causation is lacking as a matter of law. The same distinction between legal cause and merely philosophic cause applies whether the theory is negligence or strict products liability.

🔒

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 El Paso, Nina Alvarez was assigned to tow a portable warning board made by Desert Line Equipment. Coworkers had previously reported that its power cable sometimes slipped loose, requiring someone to pull over and reconnect it. Assuming Nina stopped on the shoulder to fix that problem, she was then struck by a sedan driven by Owen Pike, who had blacked out from a sudden seizure before leaving his lane.

If Nina sues Desert Line for negligence and strict products liability, which is the strongest argument for summary judgment on causation?

Explanation. Legal cause requires more than showing the injury would not have occurred but for the defect. The defendant's conduct must be a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Where the alleged defect merely explains why the plaintiff was at a particular place and time, and the third-party driver was unconscious so a proper warning would have had no effect on that driver, the connection is too attenuated as a matter of law. The same analysis applies to negligence and strict products liability. (Derived from Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez (n.d.).)