Understanding “Proximate Cause” in a Kentucky Car Accident Lawsuit

In any Kentucky personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the defendant’s negligence. In turn, there are several elements of negligence. First, the plaintiff needs to establish the defendant owed them a duty of care under the law. Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant breached that duty. Third, the plaintiff must show how that breach of duty caused injury to the plaintiff.

This final element, causation, also has two “distinct components” under Kentucky law. The first is “but-for” causation. That is, the plaintiff must show how their injuries would not have occurred “but-for” the defendant’s conduct. The second component is known as “proximate causation.” Basically, the defendant’s actions must have occurred within a reasonable time of the breach.

Kentucky Court of Appeals Dismisses Wrongful Death Lawsuit

A common defense to proximate causation is identifying a “superseding cause.” In other words, a defendant can argue that some event occurred in between their alleged breach and the plaintiff’s injuries. And it was that event that was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s damages.

A recent decision from the Kentucky Court of Appeals, Kincaid v. Drake Services, Inc., illustrates how judges consider the impact of superseding events when sorting out liability for an accident. This tragic case involved two accidents that took place within minutes of each other on I-75 in Boone County. The victim and her father were returning home after she conducted a college visit to the University of Kentucky.

The first accident occurred when a pickup truck made contact with the rear of the victim’s SUV. This proved to be a minor fender bender. Both vehicles pulled onto the shoulder of I-75 away from traffic. The victim remained in her car while her father talked to the pickup truck driver outside.

About 5 to 7 minutes later, a semi-truck left the highway and entered the shoulder, colliding with both the SUV and the pickup truck, which were still parked. This second collision killed the victim as well as the driver of the pickup truck. It turned out the semi-truck driver, who had a history of sleep disorders, fell asleep at the wheel.

The victim’s estate subsequently filed a wrongful death lawsuit against multiple defendants, including the driver of the semi-truck, his employer, as well as the estate of the pickup truck and his employer. (The pickup truck belonged to the driver’s employer.) The pickup truck defendants moved for dismissal, arguing the initial collision between the pickup truck and the SUV was not the proximate cause of the victim’s death.

The Kentucky courts agreed. The Court of Appeals, affirming a trial judge’s earlier ruling, said the second accident was a “superseding cause” that “intervened” between the events of the first accident and the victim’s subsequent death. Essentially, it was “not reasonably foreseeable” that the pickup truck causing a fender bender with the victim’s SUV would then lead to a semi-truck driver falling asleep at the wheel and striking that same SUV on the highway shoulder. Ultimately, the “second collision was the sole cause of [the victim’s] death.”

Contact a Madisonville Car Accident Lawsuit

It is not uncommon for highway truck accidents to involve multiple vehicles and defendants. That is why it is important to work with an experienced Madisonville truck accident lawyer when seeking compensation for losses arising from such crashes. Contact Whitfield Crosby & Flynn today to schedule a free consultation. We have offices in Madisonville, Kentucky; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Indianapolis, Indiana.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4018794407134972209