Village of Carterville v. Cook

Supreme Court of Illinois · Torts

TortsNegligenceMunicipal liabilityCausationConcurrent negligencemunicipal negligenceconcurrent negligencethird-party negligence

Facts

The plaintiff was a boy about fifteen years old who was walking with ordinary care along a much-used public sidewalk in the defendant village. At a point where the sidewalk was elevated about six feet above the ground and lacked any railing or guard, one boy inadvertently or negligently shoved another boy against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was jostled or pushed from the sidewalk and seriously injured in one limb. The evidence tended to show the village had negligently failed to guard the elevated sidewalk.

Issue

Whether a village that negligently fails to guard an elevated sidewalk is relieved of liability when a third person's negligent act concurs in producing the plaintiff's injury. Put differently, does the intervening negligence of an uncontrolled third party break the causal connection between the village's negligence and the injury?

Rule

If a person using due care is injured by the combined result of a municipality's negligence and an accident or the negligent act of a third person, the municipality is liable when the injury would not have been sustained but for the municipality's negligence. The negligent act of a third person over whom neither plaintiff nor defendant has control does not, by itself, break the causal connection.

🔒

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 Duluth, an elevated public footpath runs alongside a ravine. The city left the outer edge without any barrier. While Maya Ortiz was walking carefully along the path, a delivery cyclist riding too fast clipped her shoulder, causing her to fall over the edge and break her arm.

If Maya sues the city, which is the best statement of the city's liability?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a municipality is not relieved of liability merely because a third person's negligent act concurs in causing the injury. If the plaintiff was using due care, and the injury would not have been sustained but for the municipality's negligent failure to guard the dangerous place, the municipality remains liable. The negligent act of a stranger outside both parties' control does not by itself break causal connection. (Derived from Village of Carterville v. Cook (n.d.).)