Vedaseh Rampersad v. Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric LLC
554 S.W.3d 29
Tex. App.2017Background
- On Oct. 21, 2013, Rampersad on a motorcycle was struck in an intersection when the traffic lights were inoperative; he suffered a below-knee amputation.
- Approximately 3–5 minutes earlier, a 33-year-old stirrup clamp on a primary power line 2.5 miles away failed, causing a power outage that de-energized the intersection’s traffic signals.
- CenterPoint dispatched linemen within three minutes of the outage; the crash occurred two minutes after the crew was dispatched.
- CenterPoint had not been notified of the inoperative lights before the collision; the outage was unscheduled and not caused by any contemporaneous CenterPoint action.
- Rampersad sued CenterPoint for negligence (improper installation/maintenance of the clamp). The trial court granted CenterPoint’s traditional and no-evidence summary judgment; Rampersad appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CenterPoint’s alleged negligence (improper installation/maintenance of stirrup clamp) was a proximate cause of Rampersad’s injuries | Clamp failure was the but-for and substantial cause; but for the outage Rampersad would not have entered intersection with Davis | Even if a but-for cause, driver conduct (failure to treat inoperative signal as four-way stop) was an intervening, superseding cause that severs liability | Held: Driver conduct was an intervening/superseding cause; CenterPoint not liable |
| Whether foreseeability supports imposing liability on CenterPoint for the collision | The risk that an inoperative signal would lead to a collision was foreseeable from negligent maintenance | The chain of events (failure after 33 years, outage 2.5 miles away, drivers’ statutory violations) was too remote and not reasonably foreseeable | Held: Not foreseeable as a matter of law; remote/attenuated causal chain |
| Whether a genuine fact issue exists on duty/breach for summary judgment purposes | Rampersad asserted evidence of improper installation/maintenance created fact questions on duty and breach | CenterPoint argued summary judgment conclusively negated proximate causation and no-evidence grounds apply to duty/breach | Held: Court affirmed summary judgment on proximate-cause/superseding-cause ground; no need to resolve other grounds |
| Whether comparative/concurrent-cause analysis makes CenterPoint a concurring cause | Rampersad urged the outage be treated as a concurring cause that combined with driver negligence | CenterPoint argued the outage merely created a condition at rest and did not actively combine with drivers’ conduct | Held: The outage/failed clamp was a passive condition; drivers’ acts were the active, superseding cause |
Key Cases Cited
- IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of DeSoto, Texas, Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. 2004) (but-for causal links can be too remote to be legally significant)
- Bell v. Campbell, 434 S.W.2d 117 (Tex. 1968) (distinguishing active/efficient concurrent causes from mere conditions that permit later independent wrongs)
- Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc. v. Doe, 907 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. 1995) (elements of negligence and proximate-cause framework)
- Quirke v. City of Harvey, 639 N.E.2d 1355 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (utility’s shutdown of power not proximate cause where drivers violated duties at inoperative intersection)
- Goldberg v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 899 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2005) (utility held liable where company intentionally de-energized signal and had constructive knowledge of hazard)