CATHRYN HOFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD B. BENNETT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A young adult plaintiff sued a building contractor for negligence after being injured when a teenager threw a chemical in her eyes. The contractor had allegedly left an alkaline substance unguarded on church premises. The court affirmed summary judgment for the contractor, finding that the teenager's intervening act broke the chain of causation.
The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the contractor's conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury and that the teenager's acts constituted an abnormal intervening force that superseded the contractor's negligence.
[1] A defendant's conduct is not a substantial factor in causing a plaintiff's injury when a third party's abnormal intervening act supersedes the defendant's conduct.
[2] In proximate cause analysis, courts must determine both causation in fact and whether the defendant's responsibility is superseded by an abnormal intervening force.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The court in proximate cause cases must determine, inter alia, (1) causation in fact, i.e., whether the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in producing the result, and (2) whether the defendant's responsibility is superseded by an abnormal intervening force.”
Establishes the two-part test for proximate causation that governs the case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Hoffman was injured when seventeen-year-old Kevin Barber threw or shook a harmful chemical from his wet hands into her eyes and face. Both H…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Factor Test cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
Plaintiff, a young adult, was injured when seventeen-year-old Kevin Barber threw or shook a harmful chemical from his wet hands into her eyes and face. The record shows that both Hoffman and Barber were employed at the church where the events occurred.
Appellee Richard Bennett, a building contractor, was hired to construct an addition to the church. Count IV of an amended complaint for personal injury alleged that Bennett negligently left a dangerous alkaline substance on the premises in an unguarded condition, and that Barber was attracted to the substance, which proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. This appeal is from a summary judgment entered on Bennett’s motion.
The dispositive question is whether the action of Barber, who is the sole defendant in the first three counts of the four-count complaint, was an intervening and superseding cause.
The court in proximate cause cases must determine, inter alia, (1) causation in fact, i.e., whether the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in producing the result, and (2) whether the defendant’s responsibility is superseded by an abnormal intervening force. These determinations are to be made as a matter of law where reasonable people could not differ. Banat v. Armando, 430 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 446 So. 2d 99 (Fla.1984).
On the record presented, we cannot disagree with the trial court’s determinations that Bennett’s conduct was not a substantial factor in Hoffman’s injury, and that Barber’s acts superseded Bennett’s conduct as an abnormal intervening force.
Affirmed.