Robinson v. Willis
562 S.W.3d 265
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Landlords conceded (for summary judgment) they had a duty to provide heat and failed to provide adequate heat to tenant Barbara's residence.
- Barbara (or household members) purchased/used a portable space heater because the heating system failed.
- Barbara's grandchild sustained burn injuries while using/near the space heater.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the landlords; appeal followed.
- Appellate court relied on foreseeability/proximate-cause analysis, analogizing to a Washington decision (Cook v. Seidenverg) holding tenant/third-party acts can be superseding causes.
- Court concluded that while purchase/use of a heater was foreseeable, the specific injuries to the grandchild were not reasonably foreseeable; therefore landlords were not liable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landlord negligence (failure to provide heat) is actionable for injuries caused by tenant's use of a space heater | Landlord's failure foreseeably led to use of space heaters and consequent injuries | Injury to grandchild from heater use was not a foreseeable consequence of landlord's omission | Landlord liable only if injury was a reasonably foreseeable result; here it was not, so no liability |
| Whether foreseeability is required for proximate/legal cause | Foreseeability of heater purchase equals foreseeability of resulting harm | Foreseeability of purchase does not extend to the specific, intervening injury; absence of foreseeability negates proximate cause | Foreseeability is an element of proximate cause; lack of reasonably foreseeable intervening act defeats proximate cause |
| Whether intervening acts (tenant/third-party conduct or defective heater) can be superseding causes | Tenant's obtaining/using heater may be a natural, continuous result of landlord's omission | Tenant's negligent placement/use, child’s independent act, or a latent defect are independent superseding causes | Intervening human acts or defects not reasonably foreseeable are superseding causes that break the causal chain; summary judgment for landlords affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Seidenverg, 36 Wash.2d 256 (1950) (landlord’s failure to provide heat was not proximate cause of injuries from space heater use; intervening acts can be superseding causes)
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Gill, 352 Ark. 240 (2003) (negligence requires a reasonably foreseeable risk; no duty to guard against unforeseeable risks)
- Hartsock v. Forsgren, Inc., 236 Ark. 167 (1963) (foreseeability is central to assessing whether third-party conduct renders defendant’s act negligent and whether proximate cause exists)