Dee v. Johnson
2012 UT App 237
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Automobile collision case in which Dee sues Johnson for injuries.
- Johnson moved for summary judgment arguing his negligence was not a proximate cause; the trial court granted it.
- Dee's car collided with a tow truck that had been pulled onto the highway after Johnson’s loss of control on slick snow/ice.
- Dee alleges Johnson’s negligent driving created the risk that led to the tow truck incident and subsequent injuries.
- Court reviews whether Johnson’s driving was a proximate cause as a matter of law; the facts are viewed in Dee’s favor for summary judgment purposes.
- Court affirms summary judgment, holding the causal link was too remote and not reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s driving was the proximate cause of Dee’s injuries. | Dee argues foreseeability of harm from Johnson’s driving. | Johnson argues the causal link is too remote to satisfy proximate cause. | No proximate cause; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bunker v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 38 Utah 575, 114 P. 764 (1911) (Utah 1911) (proximate cause requires a natural and continuous sequence without intervening causes)
- Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2009 UT 44, 215 P.3d 152 (Utah 2009) (focuses on whether the specific mechanism of harm could be foreseen)
- Fordham v. Oldroyd (Wilkins, J., concurring), 2007 UT 74, 171 P.3d 411 (Utah 2007) (discusses remote liability and foreseeability in proximate-cause analysis)