Ney v. Yellow Cab

Illinois Appellate Court · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate Causeproximate causeprima facie negligencestatutory violationintervening criminal actforeseeability

Facts

Defendant's employee, acting within the scope of employment, left defendant's taxicab unattended with the key in the ignition and the motor running. This conduct violated section 189(a) of the Uniform Traffic Act. A thief stole the cab and, while fleeing, negligently drove it into plaintiff's parked automobile. Plaintiff sought property damages for the collision.

Issue

When a driver violates the Uniform Traffic Act by leaving a vehicle unattended with the key in the ignition and the engine running, and a thief steals the vehicle and negligently crashes it while fleeing, is the defendant's negligence capable of being found the proximate cause of the plaintiff's damage so that liability should go to the jury?

Rule

In Illinois, violation of a statute is prima facie negligence, but proximate cause is determined under the ordinary tort rule: the injury must be the natural and probable result of the negligence and of a kind an ordinarily prudent person ought to have foreseen as likely to result. An intervening act does not supersede the original negligence if that intervening act was itself probable and foreseeable; therefore, where reasonable persons could differ on foreseeability or on whether the intervening criminal conduct was extraordinary, the question of liability is 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 St. Louis, Omar Bennett parked a courier van outside an apartment building, left the engine running, and went upstairs with the keys in the ignition, despite a city traffic code requiring unattended vehicles to be shut off and locked. Within minutes, a stranger stole the van and, while speeding away, sideswiped Lena Ortiz's legally parked car two blocks away.

If Lena sues Omar's employer for negligence, which is the best statement of how the court should analyze the claim?

Explanation. The majority treated violation of the unattended-vehicle safety statute as prima facie negligence, not automatic liability. Illinois proximate cause still turns on whether the injury was a natural and probable result that an ordinarily prudent person ought to have foreseen, and an intervening criminal act does not supersede if it was itself probable and foreseeable. When reasonable persons could differ on that issue, the case goes to the jury.