stating, “whether the complained of negligence is the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury is dependent upon the harm . . . being the result of both the natural and probable consequences of the primary negligence”
How later courts described this case
- stating, “whether the complained of negligence is the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury is dependent upon the harm . . . being the result of both the natural and probable consequences of the primary negligence”
- finding a third party could not assert negligence per se based on violation of 63 0.$.1991 § 1-519
- “[T]he three essential elements of a prima facie case of negligence are: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) a failure to properly perform that duty, and (3) the plaintiffs injury being proximately caused by the defendant’s breach.”
- “[W]here the primary act of negligence is not superseded by a second cause – i.e, continues to operate concurrently, so that damage is the result of both causes acting in concert – each act may be regarded as the proximate cause[.]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting.
¶ 1 I must respectfully dissent as I believe the trial court was correct in deciding there was no actionable negligence in this matter because Loosen owed no legal duty of care to Lockhart. I would affirm that court’s dismissal of Lockhart’s claim for failure to state a cause of action.
¶ 2 I am authorized to state that Justice Opala joins in the views expressed herein.