Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308 (1980)
An intervening act will not serve as a superseding cause, relieving a defendant of liability, where the intervening act is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence.
Summary
Derdiarian, a construction worker, suffered severe injuries when struck by a car after the driver, Schmidt, experienced an epileptic seizure and lost control of the vehicle at a construction site. Derdiarian sued Felix Contracting, alleging negligence in failing to provide adequate safety measures at the work site. The New York Court of Appeals held that Felix Contracting was liable because Schmidt’s loss of control, while an intervening act, was a foreseeable consequence of the negligent failure to provide adequate barriers. The court emphasized that the key question for proximate cause is the foreseeability of the *type* of harm, not the specific mechanism by which it occurs.
Facts
Plaintiff Derdiarian was employed as a construction worker by a company other than Felix Contracting. Felix Contracting was responsible for a highway excavation. Derdiarian was working at the site when a car driven by Schmidt, who was known to have epilepsy, crashed into the work site after Schmidt suffered a seizure. There were minimal safety barriers at the construction site, consisting of only a single flagman and several traffic cones. Derdiarian sustained severe injuries as a result of the accident.
Procedural History
Derdiarian sued Felix Contracting. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the trial court reserved decision on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. After the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, the trial court granted both the motion to dismiss and a motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of evidence. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that the trial court erred in both dismissing the complaint and setting aside the verdict. Felix Contracting appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the intervening act of Schmidt losing control of his vehicle due to an epileptic seizure was a superseding cause that relieved Felix Contracting of liability for its negligence in failing to provide adequate safety measures at the construction site.
Holding
No, because the risk that a vehicle would enter the work site and cause injury was foreseeable given the inadequate safety measures; therefore, the intervening act did not break the chain of causation.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized the distinction between an intervening act and a superseding cause. An intervening act is a cause that comes into play after the defendant’s initial negligence. However, the defendant is not relieved of liability if the intervening act is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence. The court stated, “Where the acts of a third person intervene between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury, the causal connection is not automatically severed. In such a case, liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence.”
The court found that it was foreseeable that a vehicle could enter the construction site if inadequate barriers were in place. While Schmidt’s specific medical condition was not necessarily foreseeable, the general risk of a driver losing control of a vehicle was. The court stated, “That the driver was negligent, or even reckless, does not change the fact that the contractor’s negligence in failing to provide adequate safety measures was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries.” The court reasoned that the precise manner of the accident need not be foreseen; it is sufficient that the general type of harm was foreseeable. The court concluded that the issue of proximate cause was properly submitted to the jury, and the jury’s finding that Felix Contracting’s negligence was a proximate cause of Derdiarian’s injuries was supported by the evidence.