Hill v. Edmonds
26 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. 1966).
Plaintiff lost and appealed.
Question
Where both parties guilty of negligence?
Rule
Even if someone was negligent and alone their negligence did not cause the injury, all negligent parties are liable for the entire result.
Holding
Reversed, new trial.
Facts
Plaintiff was driving late at night. There was a tractor parked in the middle of the highway without lights. She swerved, but not in time and crashed. Trial court determined that she was the solely negligent party because she had time to turn.
Analysis
Both parties have exhibited negligence. However, even if neither act of negligence alone would have caused the result, both parties are liable for the full result. Therefore, because it is negligent to leave a tractor on the highway without being lit, there was concurring negligence.
Takeaway
Any negligence from any party related to an incident results in liability.
Additional Notes
There are two “but-for” causes for one accident. There are often times where the conduct from several parties result in the same injury. In these instances, both parties are liable for the injury that occurred.
Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. Ry. Co.
146 Minn. 430 (1920).
Defendant lost and appealed.
Question
Was one party liable when the negligently started fire combined with another fire to cause extensive damage?
Rule
If a fire is started by two companies that combine to cause damage, and alone they would have caused the damage, both parties are liable.
Holding
There was no error to the instruction. Affirmed.
Facts
The defendant negligently started a fire which combined with another fire of naturally occurring causes. Combined, this fire traveled and burned the property of the plaintiff.
During trial court, the judge provided instructions saying that if the defendant’s fire did not combine with the other, then they are not liable, otherwise, they can be liable. Defendant did not like that instruction and appealed.
Analysis
The instruction is sound because people should be liable for their negligent actions. The only way the defendant would not be liable is if their fire did not cause the damage.
Takeaway
This can be compared to criminal law using the “substantial factor” test. Recall that a substantial factor is used when a “but-for” test cannot. This is because both parties alone would have caused the damage but because of the concurrent negligence, you can’t determine the sole cause. The substantial factor test means that anyone whose negligence alone would have resulted in the injury can be liable for damages.
Additional Notes
In this case, we can’t use the “but-for” test because there is no way of knowing which fire had actually burned the property. When there are multiple potential concurring causes that independently would have caused the injury, the but-for test would not work. However, each fire can be considered a substantial factor in the land being destroyed.
Disclaimer
The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.
