Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

Carolina, C. & O. R. Co. v. Hill - 119 Va. 416, 89 S.E. 902 (1916)

Rule:

Where separate and independent acts of negligence of two parties are the direct cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury; and this although his act alone might not have caused the entire injury, and although, without fault on his part, the same damage would have resulted from the act of another. To show that other causes concurred in producing, or contributed to the result is no defense to an action for negligence. There is indeed no rule better settled in the present connection, than that the defendant's negligence, in order to render him liable, need not be the sole cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Where the negligence of two or more persons acting independently, concurrently results in an injury to a third, the latter may maintain his action for the entire loss against any one or all of the negligent parties, it not being essential to the maintenance of a joint action against several for negligence that they should be engaged in a common enterprise or sustain any relation whatever between themselves.

Facts:

Defendants Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway Company and contractors it hired (collectively, "Railroad") were constructing railroad lines along a river on land opposite to the property owned by plaintiff Elkanah Hill. During the construction, a lumber company ("Company") was using the river to remove lumber from the construction site. Hill filed a trespass action against the Railroad in Virginia circuit court alleging that the Railroad's construction, which involved blasting and excavating, destroyed his orchards, timber and other vegetation; tore down and destroyed his fences, walls and barns; damaged his fields, mill dam and water power; and destroyed his mill site. After a trial, a jury rendered a verdict for Hill; judgment for $2,000 was entered in his favor. The Railroad appealed, arguing that there were several concurrent causes due to independent actors—namely the Railroad and the Company—neither being sufficient to produce Hill's entire loss, and thus each of them was liable only for the injuries due to its negligence.

Issue:

Did the circuit court err by not instructing the jury that the Railroad could not be held liable for damages to Hill's property that were caused by the Company?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the state supreme court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. On appeal, the state supreme court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court ruled that, under the circumstances disclosed by the record and in accord with established precedent, it was immaterial how many people other than the Railroad may have been in fault where the Railroad's act was an efficient cause of the injury. Hill had the right to sue for and recover from the Railroad alone the entire damages sustained by him. Thus, the action of the lower court in giving, refusing, and modifying instructions was without prejudice to the Railroad's rights. The court then rejected the Railroad's claim that the verdict was excessive. The court ruled that the issue of Hill's damages was for the jury to decide, and there was nothing to show that the jury's verdict was the result of passion or prejudice.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class