Affirms summary judgment dismissing, for insufficient evidence of causation, wrongful death claim alleging plaintiff’s decedent would not have lost his balance and fallen from the back of defendant's pickup.but for defendant's negligence in driving an uninspected, defective vehicle,

Collins v. Thomas,, 2007 VT 92 [filed August 24, 2007]

DOOLEY, J. This is a wrongful death action on behalf of David Collins, who died tragically at age twenty after falling from the back of a pickup truck driven by his friend, defendant Bradford Garland. Plaintiffs, the estate of Collins, his parents, and sister, appeal an order of the superior court finding defendant not liable as a matter of law and granting him summary judgment. We affirm.

The truck was in poor repair and not legally inspected at the time of the incident. Specifically, it had only an expired New Hampshire inspection sticker and would not have passed inspection in Vermont due to insufficient tread on the tires, a defective front light, a crack in the windshield, a broken rear right shock absorber, and a faulty rear right brake cylinder.

Plaintiffs contend that but for defendant's negligence in driving an uninspected, defective vehicle, Collins would not have fallen to his death.

Liability for negligence, however, requires not only a breach of a duty of care but also evidence that defendant's unreasonable conduct caused the plaintiff's harm. See, e.g., Rivers v. State, 133 Vt. 11, 13, 328 A.2d 398, 399 (1974). Specifically, causation requires both "but-for" and proximate causation. See Wilkins v. Lamoille County Mental Health Servs., Inc., 2005 VT 121, ¶¶ 13-14, 179 Vt. 107, 889 A.2d 245. Thus, the plaintiff must first show that the harm would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct such that the "tortious conduct [was] a necessary condition for the occurrence of the plaintiff's harm." Id. ¶ 13.

The plaintiff must also show that the defendant's negligence was "legally sufficient to result in liability," Black's Law Dictionary 234 (8th ed.2004) (defining proximate cause), such that "liability attaches for all the injurious consequences that flow [from the defendant's negligence] until diverted by the intervention of some efficient cause that makes the injury its own." Beatty v. Dunn, 103 Vt. 340, 343, 154 A. 770, 771 (1931) (quotations and citation omitted); see also Estate of Sumner v. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 162 Vt. 628, 629, 649 A.2d 1034, 1036 (1994) (mem.) ("Proximate cause is the law's method of keeping the scope of liability for a defendant's negligence from extending by ever-expanding causal links.").

Although proximate cause "ordinarily" is characterized as "a jury issue," it may be decided as a matter of law where "the proof is so clear that reasonable minds cannot draw different conclusions or where all reasonable minds would construe the facts and circumstances one way." Estate of Sumner, 162 Vt. at 629, 649 A.2d at 1036 (quotations and citation omitted).


[There is no sufficient] legal nexus between any defect in the truck and Collins' death. Collins' fatal fall from atop the toolbox could just as easily have occurred had the truck been in perfect repair and properly inspected. See Wilkins, 2005 VT 121, 1212*1212 ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 107, 889 A.2d 245 (explaining that a "defendant cannot be considered a cause of the plaintiff's injury if the injury would probably have occurred without" the defendant's unreasonable conduct (internal quotations omitted)). The fall was not within the natural flow of "injurious consequences" from the truck's defects; indeed, it occurred irrespective of the defects.

[A]lthough defendant did act negligently in operating a defective truck, defendant's conduct was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, because there was no relationship between the defects and the accident.

SCOVT Note. Collins is increasingly cited for the proposition that a plaintiff alleging negligence must show “both ‘but-for’ and proximate causation.” Collins v. Thomas, 2007 VT 92, ¶ 8. See Palmer v. Furlan, 2019 VT 42; (affirming summary judgment dismissing legal malpractice claim for lack of evidence of causation); Ziniti v. New England Central Railroad, Inc.,2019 VT 9 (affirming partial summary judgment finding that car train collision was not caused by lack of a second warning sign).

Also causation “may be decided as a matter of law where the proof is so clear that reasonable minds cannot draw different conclusions or where all reasonable minds would construe the facts and circumstances one way.” Collins v. Thomas, 2007 VT 92, ¶ 8. See Bernasconi v. City of Barre, 2019 VT 6 ( affirming summary judgment dismissing premises liability claim for lack of evidence of causation.); Sachs v. Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC . 2017 VT 100 (reversing conclusion of no causation in legal malpractice case and holding causation was established as a matter of law.)


Query -- Could Collins equally have been decided on the points that the plaintiff was not a member of the group of people whom the statute requiring vehicles inspections was intended to protect and that the risk of falling out of the vehicle was not within the purview of the statute? See Montague v. Hundred Acre Homestead, LLC, 2019 VT 16 (members of the public mot entitled to sue under statute and regulations with overarching purpose to protect residents of long-term-care facilities, not the public generally); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286 (1965) (A duty may be established by safety statutes intended to protect the class of persons to which the plaintiff belongs against the particular hazard from which the harm resulted.)