Case law update: Proximate Cause and Intervening and Superseding Cause.
The article for this month focuses on a recent Opinion from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia that was published on November 8, 2023. In Boyce v. Monongahela Power Co., et al., the Plaintiff was an employee of Lowes who was making a residential delivery when he encountered overhead communication lines that his truck could not clear. He attempted to move the communication lines by climbing on top of his truck and wrapping shrink wrap around the communication lines. However, the lines were close to an energized electrical line and Plaintiff electrocuted himself. Plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result.
The lower court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of all the defendants, finding that Plaintiff’s actions were negligent and served as the only proximate cause of the incident and his resulting injuries. Further, the lower court held that even if there was a genuine issue of material fact present that would normally preclude the grant of summary judgment, Plaintiff’s actions constituted an intervening and superseding cause of the incident and injuries
.
Plaintiff appealed the decision after a Rule 59(e) motion was denied. On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that proximate cause, foreseeability, and intervening cause involves questions of fact that should be decided by a jury, not the court. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia disagreed with Plaintiff.
In its Opinion, when discussing proximate cause, the Supreme Court of Appeals found that the defendants could not reasonably foresee that a truck driver without any training in the electrical field would climb on top of a truck, shrink-wrap communication lines, and contact an energized electrical line. The Court specifically emphasized that Plaintiff’s “intentional actions that resulted in his injuries could not have been reasonably anticipated by the [defendants].” As for its discussion of intervening and superseding causes, the Court stated that all of Plaintiff’s actions were intentional and willful and because it was not reasonably foreseeable that Plaintiff would climb on top of his truck, apply shrink wrap to the communication lines, and contact the energized electrical line that was approximately 20’6” above the ground, Plaintiff’s actions were clearly intervening and superseding acts breaking the chain of causation in the immediate matter. Thus, the Court has provided further delineation as the causation necessary to establish a valid negligence claim.
|