In his recent decision in the case of
Bushta v. Hilton, Civil Action No.
3:12-CV-473 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2013 Conaboy, J.), Judge
Richard P. Conaboy of the United States Federal Middle District Court of
Pennsylvania issued an interesting case regarding the issues of causation and
superseding intervening cause.
According to the Opinion, the
subject lawsuit arose out of a two distinct motor vehicle accidents and the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs
could not satisfy the causation element of the negligence claims against the
Defendants based upon the one-vehicle accident that actually involved the moving
Defendants.
More specifically, the Plaintiff was a Pennsylvania State
Trooper, who was called to assist with traffic on Interstate 81 in
New Milford Township, Pennsylvania after the initial accident on
Interstate 81 northbound involving a tractor trailer in which Defendant James
Hilton was driving.
That accident
occurred when Defendant Hilton failed to negotiate a right curve in the
roadway, ended up traveling off the roadway, and rolled his tractor trailer onto its side.
The Plaintiff-State Trooper stopped in a middle crossover of the median
on Interstate 81 approximately ¾ of a mile to the south of the accident.
The Plaintiff was completely off the
roadway.
The Plaintiff remained in his
car.
The State Trooper Plaintiff did not
put out any flares or sound his siren.
The Plaintiff-State Trooper was in the crossover of the
median for less than five minutes with his overhead red and blue lights on and
flashers when his vehicle was struck by a tractor trailer driven by Defendant Winston
J. Whitney in the second accident at issue in this matter.
The court noted in its Opinion that approximately 30 minutes
separated the initial accident involving Defendant Hilton, and the second
accident involving Defendant Whitney and the Plaintiff.
It was also noted that the Plaintiff-State Trooper never went to the
scene of the accident involving Defendant Hilton and admitted that he knew
nothing about that accident and was not part of that investigation.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against all Defendant drivers
involved.
The Defendant, James Hilton,
the person involved in the first accident, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
after the completion of discovery.
The moving Defendant asserted that he was entitled to
summary judgment because his initial accident was not a proximate cause of
the Plaintiff-State Trooper’s injuries.
The court in this
Bushta case provided a detailed description of the basic
elements of a cause of action of negligence, including the all-important factor
of proximate causation.
The court thoroughly
reviewed the numerous factors involved in the determination of proximate
causation, including but not limited to, the place of the accident(s), the
timely involved, and the particular conduct of the Defendants involved.
Judge Conaboy also stated that, “[w]hether an intervening
act is a superseding cause of the injury which would provide insulation from
liability for one whose actions have been determined to be substantial factor
in bringing about the harm is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts §447
(1965).
The court cited the case of
Taylor v. Jackson, 643 A.2d 771 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1994).
Judge Conaboy also noted that the issue of whether proximate
cause is for a court or a jury to decide was addressed in
Taylor, supra., in which that court stated
that “our Supreme Court…observed that determination of whether an actor’s
conduct was a substantial cause of the injuries complained of should not be
taken from the jury if the jury may reasonably differ about whether the conduct
of the actor has been a substantial factor in causing the harm.”
Id. at
776-777.
Judge Conaboy stated that the
Taylor
case also confirmed that the issue of whether a third person’s conduct should
be considered a superseding/intervening cause of a Plaintiff’s injuries is for
a jury to determine where disputed issues of material fact exist.
Id. at 778.
Applying the above law to the record before him, Judge
Conaboy ruled that genuine issues of material fact existed to preclude the
entry of summary judgment.
Anyone wishing to review this interesting Opinion may click this
LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Bruce Zero of the Powell Law Firm in Scranton, PA for bringing this decision to my attention.
