Rivera v. City of New York, 11 N.Y.2d 856 (1962)

An omission or negligent act is not the proximate cause of an injury if an independent, intervening act directly causes the injury, and the resulting harm is different in character from what would normally be expected from the original omission or act.

Summary

In this case, the New York Court of Appeals held that a landlord’s failure to provide hot water to tenants was not the proximate cause of injuries sustained by an infant when the infant collided with his father, who was carrying a pot of boiling water. The court reasoned that the father’s action of providing a substitute source of hot water was an intervening act that broke the causal chain between the landlord’s omission and the infant’s injuries. The injuries suffered were also different in character from those that would normally be expected from a lack of hot water.

Facts

The defendants failed to supply their tenants with hot water. The infant plaintiff was injured when he bumped into his father, who was carrying a pot of boiling water from a substitute source intended to compensate for the lack of hot water provided by the landlord.

Procedural History

The case reached the New York Court of Appeals after proceedings in lower courts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division.

Issue(s)

Whether the failure of the defendants to supply hot water to their tenants was the proximate or legal cause of the injuries suffered by the infant plaintiff.

Holding

No, because the causal connection between the failure to supply hot water and the infant’s injuries was attenuated by the intervening act of the father and the injuries were different in character from those that would normally be expected from the landlord’s dereliction.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the failure to supply hot water was not the direct cause of the injuries. The causal connection was broken by the father’s intervention in providing a substitute supply of hot water. The court emphasized that this action was not the direct cause of the injuries either. The injuries occurred when the infant plaintiff bumped into his father who was transporting the boiling water. The court stated, “The intervention of the father brought about injuries to his son which were entirely different in character from any that would have resulted from the failure to supply hot water alone, and those injuries cannot be classified as normally to have been expected to ensue from the landlord’s dereliction.” The court effectively applied the principle that proximate cause requires a direct and foreseeable link between the negligent act and the injury. The father’s actions were deemed an intervening cause that was not a foreseeable consequence of the lack of hot water, thus relieving the landlord of liability.