Pittsburg Reduction Co. v. Horton - 87 Ark. 576, 113 S.W. 647 (1908)

Rule:

If, subsequent to the original negligent act, a new cause has intervened, of itself sufficient to stand as the cause of the injury, the original negligence is too remote.

Facts:

Appellant company engaged in mining bauxite. Children habitually used a path along the company's spur railroad track to get to school. A boy picked up dynamite caps at the edge of the track and played with them for a week in front of his parents. He later traded the caps to the child in return for paper. While the child was picking dirt out of a cap with a match, the cap exploded and caused the child's hand to be amputated. The child, by his next friend, filed a negligence action against the company and its foreman. After a jury trial, the circuit court entered a judgment for the child. The company and the foreman appealed.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the company and the foreman be held liable for the injuries sustained by the child? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the case. The court determined that the negligence of leaving the dynamite caps near the track was not the proximate cause of the child's injury because the intervening act of the trading boy's parents in permitting him to retain the caps, broke the casual connection between the child's injury and the negligence of the company and the foreman.