Main

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Efficient Proximate Cause

Design by Chris Nicholls

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

Facts of the Case Retaining wall struck by lightning and retaining wall collapsed. Collapse of wall caused pool to give way, damaging pool area. Damages repaired except for soil replacement under slab of the dwelling. Later that year insureds noticed cracking in ceilings and interior/exterior walls. Cracking of walls was attributed to lightning collapsing retaining wall. Engineering reports indicated that cause of cracking was soil shifting or settling beneath home, and because of the collapse of the retaining wall. Carrier denied coverage for cracks under earth movement exclusion. Homeowners argued that earth movement exclusion unenforceable due to rule of efficient proximate causation. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Efficient proximate cause is not a "principle of public policy." If the court declared EPC was public policy, it would encroach the territory intended for the state legislature. Effect of EPC on Outcome Court ruled that efficient proximate causation is not rule of law, earth movement exclusion is enforceable. Case remanded for inconsistent verdict on breach of contract claim. Citation State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Slade, 747 So. 2d 293 (Ala. 1999)

Facts of the Case Defendant was driving drunk at night, without lights and on the wrong side of the road. Had a wreck that killed her passenger. Def requested instruction that jury should consider passenger's alleged negligence. Trial court denied request. The jury had to decide whether Def's criminal negligence was the proximate cause of her passenger's death. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the result, and without which the result would not have occurred. It is the efficient cause - the one that necessarily sets in operation the factors that accomplish the result. Effect of EPC on Outcome Criminal negligence was proximate cause, conviction affirmed. Citation Wren v. State, 577 P.2d 235 (Alaska 1978)

Facts of the Case Corporate landowner stored blasting powder in a powder house on the premises. Landowner's employee lived on the property with his family. Two of employee's sons, who had been invited onto the property before, saw powder house door open and went to play with the powder. One boy died after blasting powder ignited. Family sued for negligent maintenance of the shed. Landowner claimed decedent's own act that had caused his death, not the landowner's negligence. Multiple proximate causes involved; only way the landowner's negligence could be "broken" from the chain of events was the child realizing and appreciating what he was doing. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause When multiple proximate causes contribute to an accident, and each is an efficient cause without which the accident would not have happened, the cause may be attributed to any one of the causes; however, an accident may only be attributed to such a cause if the cause was a "but for" cause of the accident. Effect of EPC on Outcome Landowner guilty of creating attractive nuisance. Case remanded because proximate cause of boy's death was a question for the jury. Citation Buekeye Irrigation Co. v. Askren, 46 P.2d 1068 (Ariz. 1935) Note As of April 2022, a bill is in the Arizona Legislature (2022 Bill Text AZ H.B. 2183, entitled "Amending Section 20-1503, Arizona Revised Statutes; Relating to Fire Insurance) that would include coverage for a landslide, mudslide, mud flow, or debris flow if the efficient proximate cause of the flow was a fire, put out within 180 days after the damage, for which coverage would otherwise be available.

Facts of the Case Farmer injured after leg caught in a manure spreader; sued manufacturers and distributor, claiming lack of a safety shield and defective machinery. Court found distributor negligent because distributor knew shield was flimsy and didn't stay attached, but didn't check spreader before renting it out. Defendants not joint tortfeasors and didn't share liability, so distributor didn't receive contribution from manufacturers, but court remanded for determination of indemnity. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Proximate cause is the efficient and responsible cause, but it need not be the last or nearest one. The mere fact that other causes intervene between the original act of negligence and the injury for which recovery is sought is not sufficient to relieve the original actor of liability, if the injury is the natural and probable consequence of the original negligent act or omission and is such as might reasonably have been foreseen as probable. Effect of EPC on Outcome Farmer won against distributor. Manufacturers not held liable to farmer, but case was remanded to determine whether distributor was entitled to indemnity from manufacturers. Citation Larson Machine, Inc. v. Wallace, 268 Ark. 192 (Ark. 1980)

Statute An insurer is liable for a loss of which a peril insured against was the proximate cause, although a peril not contemplated by the contract may have been a remote cause of the loss; but he is not liable for a loss of which the peril insured against was only a remote cause. If a loss or damage results from a combination of perils, one of which is a landslide, mudslide, mudflow, or debris flow, coverage shall be provided if an insured peril is the efficient proximate cause of the loss or damage and coverage would otherwise be provided for the insured peril. Coverage shall be provided under the same terms and conditions as would be provided for the insured peril. Citation Cal Ins Code §§530; 530.5

Facts of the Case A dam failed, and the ensuing flood caused extensive property damage. Property owners and business owners who leased the property (Insureds) filed claims. Insurers denied claims based on flood exclusions. Insureds argued that third-party negligence (covered) led to dam failure that caused the flood (excluded) and the term "flood" was ambiguous. Court disagreed on all counts. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Where there is a concurrency of different causes, the efficient cause — the one that sets others in motion — is the cause to which the loss is to be attributed, though the other causes may follow it, and operate more immediately in producing the disaster.... The "efficient moving cause" rule must yield to qualifying or enlarging words agreed to by the parties and included in the insurance policy. Effect of EPC on Outcome Applying "efficient moving cause rule" would abrogate language of insurance policy. Flood not an ambiguous term. Citation Kane v. Royal Ins. Co., 768 P.2d 678 (Colo. 1989)

Facts of the Case Defendant hired Plaintiff to care for sheep . He was injured by the cold when forced to herd sheep during a storm and there was inadequate fuel for warmth at the base camp. On second morning, Plaintiff found another employee's camp, that employee took Plaintiff to hospital b/c Plaintiff's feet were very frozen. In court, Plaintiff alleged Defendant was negligent in not provided sufficient fuel at the camp; Plaintiff alleged Agent had failed to comply with such duty because he was drunk. Defendant claimed Storm was an intervening cause. Trial court granted Defendant's demurrer. Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, said allegations didn't allow court to say the storm was not such an intervening cause that it could be considered the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries as a matter of law. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The mere fact that one cause may in point of time "concur with," that is, "operate along with" another, does not necessarily show that it is an efficient cause. A cause concurrent with another cause must, to be considered an efficient cause, operate contemporaneously or substantially contemporaneously, with that other cause, no matter at what time each respectively arose. Effect of EPC on Outcome Questions of proximate cause and contributory negligence were for a jury. Grant of demurrer overruled, case remanded for proceedings consistent with Wyo. Supreme Court's opinion. Citation Lemos v. Madden, 28 Wyo. 1 (Wyo. 1921)

Facts of the Case Defendant 1 ran into Plaintiff's car. Defendant 2 rear-ended Defendant 1. Plaintiff sued, Defendants each counterclaimed. Jury found each driver comparatively negligent in overall accident and in accidents between Plaintiff and the individual defendants. Jury found Plaintiff most negligent, so each Defendant recovered from Plaintiff, but Plaintiff recovered nothing. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause An efficient adequate cause being found for the injuries received by the plaintiff, it must be considered as the true cause, unless another, not incident to it, but independent of it, is shown to have intervened between it and the result. The inquiry should be as to whether the original wrongful act was the antecedent, efficient and dominant cause which put the other causes in operation. Effect of EPC on Outcome All three drivers were concurrently negligent, and no one driver's negligence was the efficient proximate cause of all the negligence. Judgment of trial court affirmed. Citation Kirchen v. Tisler, 38 N.W.2d 514 (Wis. 1949)

Facts of the Case Insureds brought breach of contract and bad faith actions against Insurers (State Farm, Allstate) after the insurers denied coverage under the insureds' homeowners policies for damage caused by rocks falling from a highwall of an abandoned rock quarry. Trial court granted insureds' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, Insurers argued that earth movement exclusions applied, so there was no coverage. Insureds argued for negligence of third-parties in design and construction of highwall. W. Va. Supreme Court found questions of fact remained to the proximate cause of the claims and whether coverage was available for the insureds. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The loss is covered if the covered risk was the efficient proximate cause of the loss. The efficient proximate cause is the risk that sets others in motion. It is not necessarily the last act in a chain of events, nor is it the triggering cause. The efficient proximate cause is the predominating cause of the loss. Effect of EPC on Outcome Since both included and excluded causes contributed to the Insured's damages, and there was not enough evidence to determine exactly what was the efficient proximate cause, the W. Va. Supreme Court reversed summary judgment in favor of Insureds and remanded for proceedings to determine whether plaintiffs sustained a loss and whether that loss was proximately caused by negligence of a third party (included) or landslide/erosion (excluded). Citation Murray v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 509 S.E.2d 1 (W. Va. 1998)

Facts of the Case High winds and heavy rain caused bad landslides. Insureds had to evacuate after weight of hillside pushed the house off the foundation. Insureds had an all-risk policy with Safeco, which covered wind and rain losses; Insureds filed claim. Safeco denied coverage because landslide was excluded peril, based on language inserted by Safeco trying to get around EPC rule. Insureds sued. Trial court granted Safeco's motion for summary judgment; Intermediate appellate court reversed with orders for partial summary judgment in favor of coverage for Insureds because expert testimony showed that wind and rain were primary cause of the landslide. Washington Supreme Court said Safeco could not work around EPC by using its exclusionary clause. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause If the initial event, the "efficient proximate cause," is a covered peril, then there is coverage under the policy regardless whether subsequent events within the chain, which may be causes-in-fact of the loss, are excluded by the policy. Effect of EPC on Outcome Expert testimony established facts from which a jury could find that EPC of Insured's damages was wind and rain. Judgment of Appellate court affirmed, case remanded to trial court for further proceedings. Citation Safeco Ins. Co. v. Hirschmann, 112 Wn.2d 621 (Wash. 1989)

Facts of the Case Man using torch to repair a dent in a coal car at work. Hose came off connection to oil tank, man engulfed in flames. His widow sued, alleging negligence. Trial court granted Employer's demurrer, finding the widow's complaint did not establish her husband's death resulted from an act for which the Employer was liable. Failure to inspect not a violation because man knew how to reconnect the hose if there were issues with it. Employer did not have a duty to warn about the dangers of the torch, particularly because the man was hired to operate that machine. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause is the efficient cause, the one that necessarily sets the other causes in operation. The causes that are merely incidental or instruments of a superior or controlling agency are not the proximate causes and the responsible ones, though they may be nearer in time to the result. Effect of EPC on Outcome There was no act for which the Employer could be held liable that could be considered the proximate cause of the man's death. Sustained demurrer affirmed. Citation Farmer's Adm'x v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 131 S.E. 334 (Va. 1926)

Statute None Citation None

Facts of the Case Suitcase fell off shelf in Insured's basement, broke valve on home-heating oil tank. Oil spilled, damaged structure and personal property. Insured's filed claim, citing explosion as the peril under Coverage C; Allstate covered damaged oil tank and valve under "damage from falling objects", but denied claim for damages due to spilled oil under pollution exclusion. Insureds filed suit. Court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, found oil pouring out of the tank from the broken valve was not an explosion and term was not ambiguous. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The efficient-proximate-cause provision of the policy applies only where there are two or more causes of loss to the covered property. It would apply only if two independent, concurring causes exist, each of which would be sufficient to cause the harm at issue. Effect of EPC on Outcome EPC could not apply because there were not multiple separate and independent causes; even if spilled oil were a "cause," it was a direct result of falling suitcase, not an independent event. Judgment affirmed. Citation Sperling v. Allstate Indem. Co., 944 A.2d 210 (Vt. 2007)

Facts of the Case Plaintiff's husband was murdered in a hotel room. Wife sued hotel owner, alleging negligent provision of security. Trial court granted summary judgment for hotel owner, found that Wife had raised issues of material fact concerning negligent provision of security, but there wasn't sufficient evidence connecting hotel owner's alleged negligent to husband's death. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The "efficient cause" of an injury is the one that sets in motion the sequence of events that lead to the injury for which damages are being sought. Proximate cause is the cause in the sequence of events leading to the injury complained of and without which the injury would not have occurred. Effect of EPC on Outcome Connecting husband's death to negligent security would have been pure speculation. Judgment affirmed. Citation Mitchell v. Pearson Enters., 697 P.2d 240 (Utah 1985)

Facts of the Case Grass near train tracks caught fire after train owned by Railway Co. went by, smoke drifted across highway. Plaintiff's wife was riding in car with her friend, they were hit by another driver. Husband sued Railway Co for negligence. Trial court found in Husband's favor; said Railway Co. negligent in allowing weeds, grass, other vegetation to grow in its right of way by the tracks and in setting the vegetation on fire. Other driver also negligent, but their negligence wasn't sole proximate cause. Intermediate appellate court reversed trial court. Texas Supreme Court reversed appellate court and affirmed trial court. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause is not always the one nearest the injury. If the original event concurs with some new cause or agency in producing the injury for which compensation is sought, then the original event remains a proximate cause thereof. The original event will not be dismissed as a cause because subsequent events may have concurred with the original event in bringing about the injury. Effect of EPC on Outcome Railway Co.'s negligence was, at minimum, a concurring proximate cause, because the other driver's negligence was connected to Railway Co.'s original negligence. Judgment for Railway Co. reversed, verdict for Husband reinstated. Citation Atchison v. Texas & P. R. Co., 186 S.W.2d 228 (Tex. 1945)

Facts of the Case Insured's son drove car to refill the tank at drug store. Son turned down a light attached to rear of car "because the light was high." Walked away from vehicle to talk to other boys. Drug store clerk couldn't tell light was still on; can holding gas was one for shipping oil, not the can the gas had originally come in. Ignition and injury occurred shortly after clerk began pouring; no evidence of who removed cap, presumed to be Son due to drug store custom. Judge determined cause was negligence on the part of the clerk. Appeals court affirmed. State Supreme Court found that son was also negligent in turning down light and walking away from the car; Son's negligence was, at minimum, concurrent with clerk's negligence, which precluded recovery. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause What is meant by "proximate cause" is not necessarily that which is next or last in time or place, but that which is a procuring, efficient, and predominant cause. Closeness in causal relation, rather, is the meaning. Effect of EPC on Outcome There was no way to tell whose negligence was the proximate cause, so recovery wasn't possible for Insured/Insured's son. Judgment in favor of Insured reversed. Citation Grigsby & Co. v. Bratton, 163 S.W. 804 (Tenn. 1913)

Statute None Citation None

Facts of the Case Insured's business involved raising chickens; insurance policy had a clause specifically covering death of chickens due to lightning. Lightning strike knocked out A/C to building where 34,000 chickens lived, lack of A/C led to deaths of almost 20,000 chickens. Insured filed a claim, Carrier denied. Insured filed suit, jury found in favor of Insured. Carrier claimed lack of evidence connecting lightning strike to deaths of chickens, that trial judge gave erroneous instructions equating "directly and immediately" with "proximate cause." Court found no error in trial judge's instructions, pointed out where multiple, qualified expert witnesses gave testimony connecting the lightning strike to the dead chickens. Court did, however, reduce jury award to actual market value of lost chickens. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause in determining the cause of a loss for the purpose of fixing insurance liability when concurring causes of damage appear, the proximate cause to which the loss is to be attributed is or may be the dominant or efficient cause - the one that sets the others in motion - although other and incidental causes may be nearer in time to the result and may operate more immediately in producing the loss. Effect of EPC on Outcome The lightning strike took out the A/C; without the A/C, several thousand chickens died. Qualified expert testimony supported jury finding that lightning strike was proximate cause of chicken deaths. Judgment for Insured affirmed, damages adjusted to actual market value of lost chickens. Citation Lesley v. American Sec. Ins. Co., 199 S.E.2d 82 (S.C. 1973)

Facts of the Case Defendant parked car in parking lot of a mental institution, left keys in ignition. Patient from hospital stole car, wrecked it, injuring Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued, alleging negligence and violation of statute requiring drivers not to leave keys in cars. Defendant filed demurrer; court sustained. Plaintiff claimed Defendant should have realized particular risks in the parking lot of an institution. Court found location didn't matter because individuals with a mental illness may be found anywhere. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Liability cannot be predicated on a prior and remote cause which merely furnishes the condition or occasion for an injury resulting from an intervening unrelated and efficient cause, even though the injury would not have resulted but for such condition or occasion....If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. Effect of EPC on Outcome Defendant had no reason to anticipate any added risk because his car was in the parking lot of a mental institution, incident could have happened anywhere. Sustained demurrer affirmed. Citation Clements v. Tashjoin, 168 A.2d 472 (R.I. 1961)

Facts of the Case Young man got into a fight. Was backing toward his car so he could keep eyes on attacker; tripped over a water meter maintained by Aqueduct and Sewer Authority of Puerto Rico and broke his leg. He and parents sued the Authority. Trial court ruled for Melendez. On appeal, Authority argued that the physical violence, not the water meter, was the proximate cause of Melendez's injuries. Court disagreed, found the way the water meter was installed had made it more dangerous. General rule of foreseeability referred to the type of consequences, e.g. tripping over a poorly installed water meter, not the actual situation. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause is defined as that cause which in a natural sequence, and without the interruption or intervention of another efficient cause, produces the injurious result of which claim is made. Effect of EPC on Outcome Violence was not proximate cause. Was foreseeable that people could trip on water meter and get hurt. No error found, verdict for Melendez affirmed. Citation Melendez v. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth., 86 D.P.R. 518 (P.R. 1962)

Facts of the Case Insured had a policy covering large lumber sheds. Policy specifically excluded losses due to snowstorms. Sheds fell during a storm, Insured filed claim for wind damage. Carrier denied, citing weight of snow as cause of loss, not the wind. Trial verdict for Insured. On appeal, Court found that evidence supported both Insured's and Carrier's theories, so issue was proper for jury determination. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause In determining the cause of a loss for the purpose of fixing insurance liability, when concurring causes of the damage appear, the proximate cause to which the loss is to be attributed is the dominant, the efficient one that sets the other causes in operation; and causes which are incidental are not proximate, though they may be nearer in time and place to the loss. Effect of EPC on Outcome Evidence supported verdict for Insured, no clear or reversible error. Judgment affirmed. Citation Trexler Lumber Co. v. Allemannia Fire Ins. Co., 289 Pa. 13 (Pa. 1927)

Facts of the Case Employee worked at a sanitarium. Injured when an ironing board was knocked off its hook by a patient and hit Employee in the leg. Employee sued for negligence. Employer said negligence complained of didn't match the evidence. Lower court ruled for Employee. On appeal, Employer pointed out that Employee had hung ironing board in same spot many times before and nothing had happened, which didn't show negligence. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause In regard to an intervening, efficient, proximate cause, in such cases it may be stated that a prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action for negligence, if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated and efficient cause of the injury, even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. Effect of EPC on Outcome The patient's act in knocking the ironing board off the hook, though accidental, was an intervening cause. Judgment for Employee reversed, action dismissed. Citation Leavitt v. Stamp, 293 P. 414 (Or. 1930)

Facts of the Case Insured had auto policy that included damage by windstorms but excluded damages caused by collision or upset. Unusually high winds blew Insured's car across the icy road and into a ditch. Insured filed claim, but Carrier denied damage was caused by a windstorm. Directed verdict granted for Carrier, new trial for Insured denied. Carrier claimed Insured had to show damage was caused by windstorm alone and nothing else; that there was nothing to prove there was actually a windstorm. Court disagreed with both contentions, said case law existed showing recovery in similar cases and said evidence showing that "the wind was of sufficient force and velocity to blow the car from one side of the street to the other" was sufficient proof of a windstorm that the issues were proper for consideration by a jury. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause In determining the cause of a loss for the purpose of fixing insurance liability, when evidence of concurring causes of the damage appears, the proximate cause to which the loss is to be attributed is the dominant, the efficient one that sets the other causes in operation; and causes which are incidental are not proximate, though they may be nearer in time and place to the loss. Effect of EPC on Outcome Verdict for Carrier reversed. New trial for insured granted. Citation Shirey v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 274 P.2d 386 (Okla. 1954)

Facts of the Case Lumber store sold gun, ammo to a minor; minor shot and killed one person, shot and injured two others. Victims and families filed separate negligence actions against lumber store. Trial court sustained Lumber Store's demurrers on all three claims, but demurrers were reversed. Court found that state law prohibited sale of firearms to minors, laws contemplated harmful use of firearms by minors as natural and probable result of the illegal sale. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Proximate cause may be found where an unbroken connection exists between the alleged wrongful act and the injury for which the claimant is seeking compensation. This connection must be a continuous succession of events, so linked together as to make a natural whole, without the presence of a new and independent cause intervening between the wrong and the injury. Effect of EPC on Outcome Minor's intentional actions were not an intervening cause relieving lumber store of liability. Judgment affirmed. Citation Neff Lumber Co. v. First Nat'l Bank, 122 Ohio St. 302 (Ohio 1930)

Statute An insurer is liable for a loss proximately caused by a peril insured against even though a peril not contemplated by the insurance contract may have been a remote cause of the loss. An insurer is not liable for a loss of which the peril insured against was only a remote cause. The efficient proximate cause doctrine applies only if separate, distinct, and totally unrelated causes contribute to the loss. Citation N.D. Cent. Code §26.1-32-01

Facts of the Case Decedent was motorman on a train, employee of Power Co. Decedent was following usual route at scheduled time, so his train had right-of-way; Power Co. had freight car on main line at the time, in violation of company rules. Trains collided head-on, killing Decedent. Plaintiff Estate sued Power Co. for negligence. Lower court ruled for Estate. On appeal, Power Co. argued that decedent had been contributorily negligent because he had been talking to other employees at the time of the accident in violation of company rules; claimed Decedent wasn't operating on scheduled time, so he had to yield; and that Decedent's negligence was sole proximate cause of the accident. Court concluded there was sufficient evidence for negligence issue to have gone to jury, that jury was properly instructed on issue of weight of negligence, proximate cause, and the effect of Decedent's contributory negligence on the award. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Proximate cause is that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new and independent cause, produces the event, and without which the event would not have occurred. Effect of EPC on Outcome There was no prejudicial or reversible error in lower court's decision. Decedent's contributory negligence properly accounted for in award determined by jury. Judgment affirmed. Citation Hinnant v. Tide Water Power Co., 121 S.E. 540 (N.C. 1924)

Facts of the Case Phone company had wires attached to a chimney. Girder lifted by a crane operated by an ironworks company hit wires. Bricks fell from chimney, hit a pedestrian. Pedestrian sued phone company for negligence related to wires. Trial court ruled, intermediate appellate court affirmed, verdict for pedestrian. On second appeal, Court held that negligent operation of the crane by ironworks company had been intervening cause of accident. Even if phone company had negligently maintained the wires, that negligent maintenance was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause of an event is the one that, in a natural and continuous sequence and unbroken by any independent cause, produces the event and without which the event would not have occurred. Effect of EPC on Outcome Phone company's negligence superseded by negligent operation of the crane. Judgment below reversed, new trial ordered. Citation Leeds v. New York Tel. Co., 70 N.E. 219 (N.Y. 1904)

Facts of the Case Insured fell, sustained minor head injury that produced two subdural hematomas on his head. Had surgery to remove blood, fluid. Fell out of hospital bed four days later, wound reopened, condition deteriorated, died six weeks later. Widow filed for Trial court found death directly attributable to post-surgery fall. Insurer appealed, contended verdict not supported by evidence and contested finding that second fall was "independent and exclusive of all other causes" as required by the policy. Court disagreed, pointed to testimony of two experts, medical reports that, though preceding events had a part in insured's death, the second fall was "the primary precipitating cause of death." Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause of an injury is that which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produces an event, and without which the event would not have occurred. The proximate cause is that which is nearest in the order of responsible causation; That which stands next in causation to the effect, not necessarily in time or space but in causal relation. Effect of EPC on Outcome Post-surgery fall was an accident entirely independent of preceding causes. Judgment in favor of decedent's widow affirmed. Citation Armijo v. World Ins. Co., 429 P.2d 904 (N.M. 1967)

Facts of the Case Plaintiff's employer was a tenant of Defendant. P injured when elevator crashed into basement while he was in it. P sued, but trial court granted D's motion for dismissal. On appeal, Court found plaintiff had sufficiently raised the issue of whether D or P's employer retain control of elevator to send matter to the jury. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The efficient (proximate) cause of an accident is the one that sets in motion the other contributory causes. That act or omission directly brought about the accident at issue, and the accident would not have occurred "but for" the efficient cause. Effect of EPC on Outcome Court said it was error for trial court to find both that P failed to establish proximate cause and P had been contributorily negligent. Judgment reversed, case remanded for a new trial. Citation White v. Ellison Realty Corp., 74 A.2d 401 (N.J. 1950)

Facts of the Case Homeowners discovered mold in attic, was a result of faulty workmanship. Moved out so mold could be eradicated, came back 14 months later. Submitted claim under all risk policy for loss of use, mold eradication to Carrier. Both claims denied because faulty workmanship was an excluded cause. Homeowners sought declaratory judgment on loss of use, said mold was an ensuing loss not otherwise excluded. Trial court granted Carrier's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Court found that mold from hidden/unknown accumulated moisture was "directly attributable to initial negligent workmanship." Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause If the cause which is determined to have set the chain of events in motion, the efficient proximate cause, is covered under the terms of the policy, the loss will likewise be covered. Effect of EPC on Outcome Loss was directly attributable to an excluded cause, so coverage was not available. Judgment affirmed. Citation Russell v. NGM Ins. Co., 176 A.3d 196 (N.H. 2017)

Facts of the Case Six college students driving home for Christmas, had a wreck with a truck carrying hay. Driver and two passengers died. Estates, surviving passenger sued truck driver, alleging negligence. Trial court ruled in favor of truck driver, appeal followed. Estates, survivors argued that evidence of truck driver's negligence was incontrovertible. Court disagreed, said issue of negligence was a jury question. Also pointed out record showing deceased driver could have been negligent. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Proximate cause is any cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury complained of and without which the result would not have occurred. Effect of EPC on Outcome Both deceased driver and truck driver were/could have been negligent, issue properly given to jury. Verdict in truck driver's favor supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous. Judgment affirmed. Citation Mahan v. Hafen, 351 P.2d 617 (Nev. 1960)

Facts of the Case Plaintiff truck company sued County after a bridge collapsed while company employee was driving tractor-trailer across it. Lower court agreed that County was negligent in not putting up a "Load Limit" sign, but Employee had also been negligent, which was an intervening cause, ruled in County's favor. Truck Company appealed for error in findings. Court found verdict supported by evidence, there was "no reasonable doubt" that Employee had also been negligent. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Proximate cause is that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred. Effect of EPC on Outcome The trial court's verdict was not clearly wrong; judgment in favor of County affirmed. Citation Corbet, Inc. v. County of Pawnee, 365 N.W.2d 437 (Neb. 1985)

Facts of the Case Plaintiff riding in car with Defendant, who was driving. Got behind a string of cars, D attempted to go around them. Another driver in the line started to go around; D hit brakes, pulled to left should to avoid hitting car in front, went out of control, down a bank, through a fence, and rolled over. P suffered multiple injuries; sued D and other driver who tried to go around, alleged concurring negligence. Jury returned verdict in P's and other driver's favor. D claimed other driver was negligent as a matter of law because he didn't use blinkers, said his negligence was "an intervening independent cause" that superseded/negated D's negligence. D also claimed "sudden emergency rule" meant she wasn't negligent. Court said evidence was sufficient to go to jury; found no error in omitting instruction for sudden emergency because jury received adequate instructions on D's duty of care. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause In determining the proximate cause of an injury or accident, the court will look to the succession of events existing in every transaction, more or less dependent each upon the preceding event...and this must be determined in view of the circumstances existing at the time....If this sequence of events leads up to and results in the injury without intervening independent cause, it is the efficient and proximate cause. Effect of EPC on Outcome There was sufficient evidence for jury to find other driver's negligence was intervening cause, but they decided otherwise. Sufficient evidence to support verdict against D. Court won't touch judgment if there is substantial evidence supporting it. Judgment affirmed. Citation Holland v. Konda, 385 P.2d 272 (Mont. 1963)

Facts of the Case Truck Driver 1 lost control of truck, pulled across the highway, did not initially have lights on. Two other truck drivers hit brakes hard, Truck Driver 4 died after rear-ending third truck. Widow of Truck Driver 4 sued Truck Driver 1 for wrongful death, Truck Driver 1 found negligent. On appeal, Truck Driver 1 claimed his negligence wasn't the proximate cause of decedent's death, also that decedent himself had been negligent in not stopping. Court disagreed, said trucks 2 and 3 only slammed brakes because of Truck Driver 1. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause An efficient, intervening cause is a new and independent force which so interrupts the chain of events that it becomes the responsible, direct, proximate, and immediate cause of the injury but it may not consist merely of an act of concurring or contributing negligence. Effect of EPC on Outcome Truck Driver 1's actions set in motion the chain of events leading to Truck Driver 4's death. Judgment affirmed. Citation Foley v. Hudson, 432 S.W.2d 205 (Mo. 1968)

Facts of the Case Gas company laying lines had to dig up parts of the road. Kept trench filled, but fill was often displaced due to volume of traffic. Driver swerved to avoid trench, failed. Lost control of vehicle and hit a man driving a motorcycle. Motorcycle driver sued. Gas company claimed car driver's negligence was proximate cause. Court disagreed, said car driver was keeping reasonable look out, was entitled to swing to avoid the trench. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause If the force which causes the injury is put in operation or motion by what is the negligence of the defendant, and that force or motion is still in progress or operation and has not lost its identity and continuity, as such, when the injury occurs, then the negligence which puts the injurious force in operation is the proximate cause.... If a new and independent force or power is actually an efficient force or power, then the new force becomes the proximate cause, and the original cause, having been superseded, becomes the remote cause. Effect of EPC on Outcome The gas company's negligence, and not the car driver's, in failing to keep the trench filled and properly illuminated at night was the proximate cause of the motorcycle driver's injuries. Judgment for motorcycle driver affirmed. Citation Public Service Corp. v. Watts, 150 So. 192 (Miss. 1933)

Facts of the Case Plaintiff and Defendant were repairing a tractor crimper. Plaintiff hit in the eye by a piece of metal when defendant tried to remove a bearing with a hammer and chisel. Plaintiff sued for negligence. Jury found both plaintiff and defendant had been negligent, but plaintiff's negligence was not a proximate cause of accident; however, 78% negligence attributed to defendant, 22% to plaintiff. Awarded full damages to plaintiff. On appeal, court found jury verdict inconsistent, set aside determination that plaintiff's negligence wasn't a proximate cause of the accident. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause By proximate cause is meant the direct or immediate cause, or the natural sequence of events without the intervention of another independent and efficient cause. Proximate cause is that which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause produces the injuries and without which the result would not have occurred. Effect of EPC on Outcome Court held that jury couldn't say P's negligence wasn't the proximate cause, then assign 22% contributory negligence to P. Judgment reversed, remanded with instructions to make the judgment consistent and enter it accordingly. Citation Orwick v. Belshan, 231 N.W.2d 90 (Minn. 1975)

Facts of the Case Store clerk took waste paper to vacant lot, burned it, waited for fire to die down. Later, some boys found embers and restarted the fire with other waste paper. Wind blew burning paper against young girl, her clothes caught fire; she died from burns. Estate sued storekeeper, won. On appeal, court said the boys restarting the fire was an intervening cause. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause such condition was not the proximate cause. Effect of EPC on Outcome Judgment against storekeeper reversed because the clerk's actions were not the proximate cause of the girl's death. Citation Fuller v. Hessler, 197 N.W. 524 (Mich. 1924)

Facts of the Case Insured's had a homeowner's policy that covered negligence of others, but excluded pollution. Insured's house was downhill from a home heated by oil. Other homeowners decided to move oil storage tank from basement to underground. They were somehow negligent, Insureds suffered damage with roughly 500 gallons of oil "migrated underground" from other property to their home, filed a claim. Carrier denied, citing pollution exclusion. Insureds sued, claiming policy expressly covered negligence of others. Carrier asserted damage was caused by the polluting oil, not the negligent owners of the other house. Trial court granted Insured's motion for summary judgment. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause When it is said that the cause to be sought is the direct and proximate cause, it is not meant that the cause or agency which is nearest in time or place to the result is necessarily to be chosen. . . . The active efficient cause that sets in motion a train of events which brings about a result without the intervention of any force started and working actively from a new and independent source is the direct and proximate cause. Effect of EPC on Outcome Third-party negligence "set in motion" the chain of events that led to Insured's property damages. Grant of summary judgment for Insured's affirmed. Citation Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 610 N.E.2d 954 (Mass. 1993)

Facts of the Case A streetcar collided with a passenger car and killed a passenger in the car. Estate claimed motorman of streetcar was negligent in driving too fast and man had died from that collision. Streetcar Co. claimed the driver of the passenger car had been driving too fast, and man had died as result of the car hitting a curb or when the car crashed into a store window, meaning Driver's negligence was proximate cause. Evidence of streetcar and passenger car drivers conflicted. It wasn't possible to tell whether decedent had been injured/killed by crash with streetcar or crash into window front. Court found each driver owed the other a duty of care, but question was primary negligence, not contributory. Evidence showed that both drivers were/could have been negligent, and jury had found Streetcar Co. primarily negligent. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The efficient cause is the one that necessarily sets the other causes, those merely incidental or instruments of a superior or controlling agency, are not the proximate causes and the responsible ones, although they may be nearer in time to the injury complained of. Effect of EPC on Outcome Evidence supported finding that Streetcar Co. was primarily negligent, so verdict for Plaintiff (widow, children) was affirmed. Citation United R. & E. Co. v. State, 163 A. 90 (Md. 1932)

Facts of the Case Plaintiff was Defendant's patient. D prescribed oral antibiotics for P's severe abdominal pain. Different doctor discovered an abdominal abscess a few weeks later, P had to have multiple surgeries to remove abscess, including hysterectomy. P sued D for negligence, had multiple witnesses testify to negligence. Jury found liability, but court reversed because proving negligence in med mal claims required showing a departure from recognized standard of care. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Proximate cause is "that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred." Effect of EPC on Outcome Negligence alone insufficient. Plaintiff showed no evidence of Defendant's alleged negligence actually causing her injury. Citation Merriam v. Wanger, 757 A.2d 778 (Me. 2000)

Facts of the Case Plaintiff and Defendant collided in intersection where P had right-of-way. P suffered physical injury and property damage, asserted negligence action against D, who denied liability and asserted that, even if he was negligent, P couldn't recover due to P's contributory negligence. Lower courts found D's negligence was proximate cause of accident; P's negligence, if any, was not causally connected to the accident. D argued P should have seen him coming, but Supreme Court found that, even if P had seen D, there was no showing P could have avoided accident based on circumstances. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause of an injury is the primary or moving cause or that which, in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the accident could not have happened, if the injury be one which might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural consequence of a wrongful act. Effect of EPC on Outcome Plaintiff's negligence, if any, did not supersede Defendant's. Judgment for P affirmed. Citation Theunissen v. Guidry, 244 La. 631 (La. 1963)

Facts of the Case Plaintiff talking to others in a public alley near his home. In the alley was a phone pole maintained by Telephone Co.; a guy wire was attached to the pole and anchored in the alley. Dressell driving heavy delivery wagon down alley, wagon tipped over and knocked down/crushed Plaintiff, who suffered severe and permanent injuries. Plaintiff sued Dressell, Telephone Co., and City of Louisville, alleging negligence. Evidence showed that there were safer ways of anchoring a guy wire, that wire was nearly the same color as the fence behind it so wire was hard to see. Jury found in favor of Plaintiff against Dressell (12%) and Telephone Co. (88%), but not City. On appeal, Telephone Co. argued its own negligence was not the proximate cause due to Dressell's negligence. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause of an injury is that which in natural and continuous sequences, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. Effect of EPC on Outcome Evidence supported finding of negligence on the part of Phone Co., Dressell's wagon wouldn't have tipped without Phone Co.'s earlier negligence. Citation Louisville Home Tel. Co. v. Gasper, 93 S.W. 1057 (Ky. 1906) Note Until 1975, the court of last resort in Kentucky was the Kentucky Court of Appeals, not the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Facts of the Case Employee instructed to harness an untamed horse that he didn't know was untamed; another employee had left a doubletree (harness part) on the tongue of the wagon; that part fell, hit the horse on the heels; horse spooked and ran, injuring first employee. Employee sued for negligence. Employer filed demurrer for insufficient pleadings, claimed their alleged negligence wasn't proximate cause. Trial court overruled. State supreme court found the employee's complaint had introduced an intervening cause: the other employee's negligence in leaving doubletree on the wagon. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause of an injury is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. Effect of EPC on Outcome Other employee's negligence was intervening cause. Judgment against employer reversed. Citation Cruzan v. Grace, 198 P.2d 154 (Kan. 1948)

Facts of the Case Insured had business policy with State Farm for building. Interior pipe running from roof to sewer busted during rainstorm. Insured filed a claim, but SF denied claim based on rain exclusion. Insured sued, claimed damage was covered by "damage from breaking or cracking of any part of a system containing water or steam" clause. Trial court disagreed and found for SF based on exclusion. Appellate court also disagreed with insured's argument, but reversed the decision because rainwater damage from busted pipe was not damage caused by rain. Supreme Court disagreed with Appellate court. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause When insurance policies lack such an anticoncurrent-cause provision, we have held an accident that has two independent causes, one of which is covered and one excluded, is covered unless the excluded cause is the sole proximate cause of injury. Effect of EPC on Outcome Coverage did not apply because policy didn't cover rain, period, even if it combined with a busted interior pipe to cause damage. Citation Amish Connection, Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 861 N.W.2d 230 (Iowa 2015)

Facts of the Case Truck owner left stalled truck in the road, did not turn on lights. Driver of passenger car approached, slowed down for nearby construction; didn't see stalled truck until it was too late, hit the bumper, car went spinning. Passenger car hit another vehicle, then a barrier, and the barrier collapsed onto plaintiff, causing injuries. Plaintiff sued stalled truck driver, received favorable verdict. Truck driver claimed his negligence wasn't proximate cause because passenger driver had also been negligent. Court disagreed, said if the collision was not caused by the negligence of the driver of the passenger car, it must have been caused by appellant's negligence. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause It is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient, intervening cause, produced the result complained of, and without which the result would not have occurred. It need not necessarily he the immediate cause, but must be the efficient cause which set in motion the chain of circumstances which led up to and produced the injury complained of. Effect of EPC on Outcome Even if passenger driver was negligent, his negligence combined with truck drivers to cause the injury, so truck driver would still be liable. Verdict against stalled truck driver affirmed. Citation Winder & Son, Inc. v. Blaine, 29 N.E.2d 987 (Ind. 1940)

Facts of the Case Two men who worked for a public service company electrocuted when a dragline machine owned by another company came into contact with the line they were working on. Widows filed suit against both companies for negligence. Public service company argued that its negligence (improper insulation of cable/wire) merely created the opportunity, and the dragline machine driver's negligence was an "intervening efficient cause." Jury found both guilty. Trial court granted motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for service company, denied the same motion for the dragline machine owner. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause If two wholly independent acts, by independent parties, neither bearing to the other any relation or control, cause an injury by one creating the occasion or condition upon which the other operates, the act or omission which places the dangerous agency in operation is the efficient intervening cause that breaks the causal connection and makes the other act or omission the remote and not the proximate cause of the injury. Effect of EPC on Outcome JNOV for Service Company affirmed because it was not the proximate cause of deaths. Judgment against dragline machine owner affirmed because driver of the machine was an employee of the company that owned it. Citation Merlo v. Public Service Co., 45 N.E.2d 665 (Ill. 1942)

Facts of the Case Man driving with four young employees across series of parallel train tracks. Train came suddenly around corner, no whistle/bells, hit the car. Three passengers died, driver and one passenger severely injured. Parents of passengers sued railroad company and Driver/Employer for negligence. Verdict against both. Argument over whether Driver/Employer's negligence was "sufficiently contributory" to relieve Railroad of liability when Driver/Employer paid judgment against it. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Where several causes combine to produce injuries, a person is not relieved from liability because he is responsible for only one of them, it being sufficient that his negligence is an efficient proximate cause, without which the injury would not have resulted, and that such other cause is not attributable to the negligence of the plaintiff. Effect of EPC on Outcome Railroad and Driver were independent, not joint, tortfeasors, so question was properly submitted to jury. Driver/Employer's payment of judgment against him did not satisfy judgment against Railroad. Citation Valles v. Union Pac. R.R., 238 P.2d 1154 (Idaho 1951)

Facts of the Case The Board of Health ordered the burning of certain buildings in an effort to prevent the spread of the bubonic plague. Insureds suffered fire damage, filed claims. Carrier denied the claims based on exclusion for loss cause by order of civil authority; insureds filed suit. The court held that the main risk insured against was fire, not the bubonic plague. Proximate cause of plaintiffs' loss had to be determined by considering the main risk insured against, the policy exceptions, and the intent of the parties. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause is not necessarily the nearest in time or place. It is the predominating, operative, efficient cause, -- which sets the others in motion. Effect of EPC on Outcome Order of the Board of Health was proximate cause of damage, not the plague, so exclusion applied. Citation Hawaii Land Co. v. Lion Fire Ins. Co., 13 Haw. 164 (Haw. 1900)

Facts of the Case Typhoon struck, blew 27-foot storage container from Sea Star's property over to Nissan's, multiple vehicles damaged. Nissan sued, claiming negligence in securing the container. Sea Star claimed "Act of God" defense because typhoon was unusually strong. Court said typhoons were a regular occurrence in Guam, and one of the biggest problems was damage from flying debris. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Proximate cause includes a determination that the negligent conduct of an actor is the cause-in-fact of the injury suffered as well as a determination that the act produced the injury in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any new independent cause which supersedes the negligent conduct of the original actor. Effect of EPC on Outcome Strength of typhoon did not relieve Sea Star of its duty of care— properly securing the container—to Nissan, so typhoon was not an "act of God." Award to corporation for estimated repairs for 11 of 14 damaged vehicles upheld. Denial of lost profits also upheld because prices in the car industry were too speculative to measure lost income. Citation Nissan Motor Corp. v. Sea Star Group, 2002 Guam 5 (Guam 2002)

Facts of the Case Savannah Electric operated streetcars. One day, conductor was drunk, not doing job well, issues with giving change for fare. Conductor got into a scuffle with a passenger; Conductor fired shots, missed passenger but hit/killed a woman in the street. Her husband and child sued the railway company. Question over whether conductor's actions could be attributed to employer. Company filed demurrer challenging sufficiency of family's allegations. Court overruled; Company knew of Conductor's habits/tendency to be armed, so there was sufficient pleading to move forward with the case. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The (efficient) proximate cause of an accident sets the causes in motion. Other incidental causes, even if closer in time to the actual accident, are not the true proximate cause. If and only if the causes are independent of one another will the "last cause" be considered the proximate cause. Effect of EPC on Outcome There was enough evidence of Company's negligence that the issue could go to a jury. Citation Savannah Electric Co. v. Wheeler, 58 S.E. 38 (Ga. 1907)

Facts of the Case Claimant purchased house in spring, had an $8M custom "all risk" policy; leaks appeared a few months later; found evidence of defect construction. Hurricane hit, leading to more damages. Leaks not reported to insurer until end of the year. Carrier denied claim except for $50,000 of mold damage. Claim later renewed, same result. Court found there was no way to tell which cause—rain or construction problems—was the efficient cause. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause Efficient proximate cause provides that where there is a concurrence of different perils, the efficient cause—the one that set the other in motion—is the cause to which the loss is attributable. Effect of EPC on Outcome Court could not apply efficient proximate cause because it was impossible to tell whether the rain or the defective construction was the proximate cause. However, Insurer didn't explicitly avoid concurrent cause, so it couldn't preclude recovery. Citation Sebo v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016)

Facts of the Case Boy got into plaintiff's car; went down a hill and hit a parked car. Plaintiff filed claim under comprehensive coverage. Insurer denied claim. Trial court found in favor of defendant b/c collisions was an "excepted cause" under comprehensive policy. Court determined boy's actions were proximate cause of collision. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause, as we have seen, is the dominant cause, not the one which is incidental to that cause, its mere instrument, though the latter may be nearest in place and time to the loss. Effect of EPC on Outcome Judgment for Carrier reversed. Insured granted a new trial because the boy's actions, intentional or otherwise, were within the scope of the comprehensive policy. Citation Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 41 A.2d 168 (D.C. 1945)

Facts of the Case Man was helping install a double-wide, touched a live wire and suffered severe injuries. Filed suit, alleged wire had not been at the proper height. Electric company found negligent for low-hanging wire; Employer was found negligent for allowing worker to be on roof of moving vehicle without support to move wires with his bare hands. Jury found both Electric Co. and Employer negligent, mix-up over question of superseding causes. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause The proximate cause of an accident is one in the chain of events that was a "but for" cause of the accident, meaning had that cause not occurred, the accident would not have happened. And, simply because another event happened after the proximate cause does not mean the other event is an intervening cause. Effect of EPC on Outcome Evidence of employer's negligence as a superseding cause was permissible. Sufficient evidence at trial to warrant jury instruction on superseding cause. Judgment relieving Electric Corp. of liability reversed because verdict was inconsistent and unresponsive to instructions. Citation Duphily v. Delaware Elec. Coop., Inc., 662 A.2d 821 (Del. 1995)

Facts of the Case Pedestrian slipped and fell on icy sidewalk and sued the city, alleging the sidewalk was not safe. City claimed the fall was due to ice from a recent storm. The court found the sidewalk was unsafe because snow and ice had been accumulating all month. Court had to decide whether city could be held liable for the woman's injuries based on interaction of the sidewalk and the ice on it. Case Finding on Efficient Proximate Cause If the injury would not have occurred but for the natural cause, the defect cannot be held to have produced the injury, nor can it be held to have been the essential cause of the injury. Wherever the defect is the proximate cause of the injury, the natural cause cannot be held to be a concurring cause in any sense other than that it contributed to the injury as an incidental and remote cause. Effect of EPC on Outcome Defect was the direct and proximate cause of the injury, even if it had combined with natural cause (ice) to cause the injury. Citation Jennes v. Norwich, 140 A. 119 (Conn. 1927)