Kush v. City of Buffalo, 59 N.Y.2d 619 (1983)
An intervening act, particularly one involving reckless conduct by the plaintiff, may constitute a superseding cause that absolves the defendant of liability, even if the defendant’s negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.
Summary
The case concerns a plaintiff who sustained injuries after diving headfirst into a shallow swimming pool owned by the City of Buffalo. The plaintiff sued the city, alleging negligence in allowing trespassers into the pool area, maintaining the pool at a dangerously low water level, and placing a lifeguard chair near the shallow end. The New York Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff’s reckless act of diving headfirst into shallow water, despite being an experienced swimmer familiar with the pool’s water levels, was an unforeseeable, superseding cause that relieved the city of liability. The court emphasized that legal cause can be decided as a matter of law when only one conclusion can be drawn from the established facts.
Facts
The City of Buffalo owned and operated a swimming pool.
The pool was allegedly negligently maintained: trespassers gained entry, the water level was dangerously low, and a lifeguard chair was placed near the shallow end.
The plaintiff, an adult experienced in swimming, was aware of the general dangers of diving and familiar with the various water levels throughout the pool.
The plaintiff chose to dive headfirst from the lifeguard chair into the shallow end of the pool and sustained injuries.
Procedural History
The plaintiff sued the City of Buffalo, alleging negligence.
The defendant moved for summary judgment.
The lower court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding the plaintiff’s actions to be a superseding cause.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff’s reckless conduct of diving headfirst into a shallow pool, despite his awareness of the dangers and water levels, constitutes an unforeseeable superseding event that absolves the defendant of liability for negligence.
Holding
Yes, because the plaintiff’s reckless conduct, as an adult experienced in swimming and aware of the water levels, was an unforeseeable superseding event that broke the chain of causation between the defendant’s alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that to establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial cause of the injury. The court cited Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., stating that when an intervening act contributes to the injury, liability depends on whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence.
Even assuming the City’s negligence contributed to the injury, the court found that the plaintiff’s reckless dive was an unforeseeable superseding event. The court emphasized the plaintiff’s experience as a swimmer and his knowledge of the pool’s varying water levels. The court quoted Basso v. Miller, stating that “foreseeability shall be a measure of (a landowner’s) liability”.
The court adopted the Restatement’s view on superseding cause, noting that an intervening act can break the chain of causation if it is extraordinary under the circumstances. The court concluded that only one conclusion could be drawn from the established facts; therefore, the question of legal cause could be decided as a matter of law. The court reasoned that a reasonable person would not expect an experienced swimmer, aware of the dangers and water levels, to dive headfirst into the shallow end of a pool.
The court held that the plaintiff’s own reckless conduct absolved the defendants of liability, as it was an unforeseeable and superseding cause of his injuries. As the court noted, “[W]here only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts * * * the question of legal cause may be decided as a matter of law”.