That's right! Speedy is not liable because Speedy didn't cause Horace's death. It's not enough that Speedy was negligent with respect to the type of death that occurred. Speedy just got lucky that Horace died a moment before Speedy reached the crossing.

So why not say that Rusty just got lucky that Ms. Driver didn't try to sound the horn? How did Rusty cause Ted's injury if the injury would have happened anyway? Prosser says that it like the case of two fires, each of which would have sufficed to burn down the plaintiff's property. The court in Anderson page 274, held that one who negligently sets a fire that combines with another fire is liable even though the property would have been destroyed anyway.

The two cases are not the same. In Anderson the defendant's fire was capable of destroying the plaintiff's property. But Rusty's negligence in disconnecting the horn could not have caused the accident unless Driver had tried to sound her horn. But aren't the two cases close enough that the law should say that Ted should be liable for being negligent with respect to this type of accident?
Back to Assignment 5

Back to the Problem Page