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
McCALEB, Justice
(dissenting).
The views expressed on rehearing simply amount to the adoption of the “but for” *501 doctrine of negligence in this State despite the attempt made in the opinion to have it appear otherwise. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive a state of facts wherein, as here, the intervening negligence is the direct cause of the accident, in which the court would not be compelled to regard the parking violation as a concurring cause whenever such violation tended to impede the progress of traffic. Yet, it cannot be gainsaid that the accident would not have happened in just the same way had the movement of traffic been slowed for any other reason. This being so, how then is the traffic violation a proximate cause? To say that the defendant here must respond in damages, when plaintiffs’ decedent was killed by the direct fault of another, constitutes a gross extension of the word “fault” as used in Article 2315 of our Civil Code.
I respectfully dissent, adhering to the principles expressed and the conclusion reached in the original opinion.