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 Driver just got lucky that Rusty disconnected the horn? How did Driver 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 capable of destroying the plaintiff's property. But Driver's negligence in not hitting the horn could not have caused the accident unless Rusty had not disconnected the 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