Appellate Division, Second Department Gives Us A Lesson on Proximate Cause

No matter how many times practitioners read tort cases, the chain-reaction automobile accidents, or accidents similarly posing proximate cause issues, challenge us (or, at the very least, me).  The Appellate Division, Second Department's decision in Ali v. Daily Pita Bakeries is just such a case.   

The appellant made a U-turn in front of the automobile in which the plaintiff was a passenger.  The plaintiff testified that the automobile in which he was a passenger stopped before hitting the appellant.  The defendant Daily Pita Bakeries rear-ended the automobile in which the plaintiff was a passenger.  The Court concluded that questions of fact existed regarding the appellant's negligence, the negligence was not the proximate cause of the  accident.  The Court stated: "since the plaintiff testified that the vehicle occupied by him successfully stopped and "never hit" the appellant's vehicle, the appellant's negligence, if any, was not a proximate cause of the accident."

It's actually interesting to analyze these cases to determine where the negligence is the proximate cause and where the negligence merely furnished the condition for the accident.

Comments

[David Novak]

Matt, not to be disrespectful to the Court, but this is an assinine decision. I mean, the guy making the illegal U-turn caused the car behind him to stop short, thereby causing the accident. What difference does it make that the plaintiff's car never hit the car in front of it?

This reminds me of an accident I was in once. My brother and I were on the cross bronx, a car was getting on the highway and pulled in front of us at a really slow speed, causing us to slow down dramatically and unexpectedly, which caused a car to rear end us. Obviously, it is foreseeable that if someone does something that causes another car to stop or slow down unexpectedly, that there will be an accident. It just makes no difference that the original wrongdoer managed to avoid being hit; he still caused the whole accident.

Anyway, Happy Holidays!

[Bryan Richmond]

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Novak. A proximate cause is not merely a circumstance which enabled the happening of an accident, but a means to place blame on a party or parties but for whose negligence the accident could not occur. Although defendant's negligence may have caused the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger to stop, this did not cause the accident in which plaintiff was injured. A seperate, intervening act of negligence on the part of the vehicle following the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger is, at least arguably, the proximate cause of the accident since that vehicle was following too closely for the conditions or otherwise failed to appropriately respond to the situation. If a vehicle were to slow down or stop in traffic because of some codition he observed ahead or to look at an accident scene, the persons making the specticle would not be liable to a plaintiff if the slowing vehicle was hit from the rear.

[NBlack]

I agree with both of you. I think, for me, the key word in Mr. Richmond's comment above is "arguably". The intervening act of the car behind the behicle that plaintiff was in--that being the act of rear ending that car--*arguably* caused the accident, but the appellant's car may arguably have been *a* proximate cause as well. In my mind, it's an issue of fact for the jury to determine, since reasonable minds could differ on that issue--just as reasonable minds have differed in the comments to this post!

[Norm]

The vehicle who rearends another vehicle is the cause of the accident. All vehicles are required to keep enough space between themselves and the vehicle in front to stop properly in case of an emergency. Daily Pita was at fault because it was violating this rule.