a sine qua non or condition precedent, a “but for” element
How later courts described this case
- a sine qua non or condition precedent, a “but for” element
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SANDERS, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority holds that the conduct of the defendant in parking his automobile on the highway was not a cause-in-fact of the collision and resulting death. I am unable to agree with this holding.
A cause-in-fact is a necessary antecedent. Under the circumstances of this case, if the death would not have occurred but for the conduct of the defendant, factual causation is shown.
The evidence reflects that if the automobile had not been parked on the congested highway, the traffic would have continued to move smoothly and undoubtedly no collision would have ensued. Hence, the conduct of the defendant was a factual cause of the death. For liability to attach, it need not be the only cause. Dixie Drive It Yourself System New Orleans Co. v. American Beverage Co., 242 La. 471 , 137 So.2d 298 ; Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Railroad Company, 243 La. 829 , 147 So.2d 646 . Hence, in my opinion, the holding of the majority is in error.
In Newton v. Allstate Insurance Company, La.App., 209 So.2d 744 , cert. denied 252 La. 465 , 211 So.2d 329 , the Court of *485 Appeal, Second Circuit, reached a contrary result on similar facts.
For the reasons assigned, I respectfully dissent.