Smith v. Hess, 108 N.E.3d 1266

At a traffic light Smith's stopped car was rear-ended; a third vehicle driven by Heather Hess struck the second car. Smith exited, checked occupants, and waited for police.
About 15–20 minutes after the crash, Smith told the responding officer he needed to urinate; the officer told him to wait and later told him he could step over a guardrail and go down a snowy, icy steep hill to a bush to urinate.
Smith slipped on the ice, fell down the hillside about 200–250 feet, lost consciousness, and sustained a fractured right humerus requiring surgical fixation.
Smith sued Hess for negligence; Hess moved for summary judgment arguing the automobile collision was not the proximate cause of Smith’s shoulder injury because Smith’s fall was an independent intervening act.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Hess as to claims arising from Smith’s slip and fall, finding Smith’s conduct broke the chain of causation; the court entered a Civ.R. 54(B) certification to permit immediate appeal.
The appellate court affirmed, holding as a matter of law Smith’s descent down the icy embankment was a superseding, unforeseeable intervening act that severed Hess’s liability for the shoulder injury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith’s fall was an intervening/superseding cause that broke causation	Smith: Injury was foreseeable consequence of the crash chain; Hess’s negligence set events in motion	Hess: Smith’s choice to traverse a known steep, ice-covered slope was a new, independent act; not foreseeable	Held: Fall was a superseding intervening act; chain of causation broken — summary judgment proper
Whether the injury was reasonably foreseeable by Hess	Smith: A person may need to urinate after an accident; thus fall was foreseeable	Hess: Could not reasonably foresee an occupant with prostate issues would attempt to descend an icy ravine	Held: Not reasonably foreseeable; absolves Hess of liability for the shoulder injury
Whether proximate cause should have been left to the jury	Smith: Proximate cause is typically a jury question	Hess: No reasonable minds could find Hess’s actions proximately caused the shoulder injury	Held: As no reasonable minds could differ, proximate cause resolved as a matter of law; summary judgment appropriate
Whether plaintiffs submitted admissible evidence opposing summary judgment	Smiths: Argued trial court erred in saying they submitted no evidence	Hess: The deposition relied on was submitted by Hess; plaintiffs offered only legal argument	Held: Trial court correctly characterized the record; any error harmless since appellate de novo review supports the judgment

Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment standard)
Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (nonmoving party’s burden to produce specific facts)
Clinger v. Duncan, 166 Ohio St. 216 (proximate cause definition)
Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (concurrent proximate causes)
Berdyck v. Shinde, 66 Ohio St.3d 573 (intervening cause must be independent and break causal chain)
R.H. Macy & Co., Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., 51 Ohio St.3d 108 (foreseeability of intervening act tests break in causation)
Leibreich v. A.J. Refrigeration, 67 Ohio St.3d 266 (when successive acts may be joined or are independent)
Taylor v. Webster, 12 Ohio St.2d 53 (foreseeability and continuation of causal chain)