I read about this case in the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly today, and wanted to share the Lawyers Weekly article because it touches nicely on a fairly esoteric legal point. In this case, a large tow truck was illegally parked overnight. A driver hit the illegally parked vehicle, killing his passenger. The passenger’s estate sued the owner of the tow truck. The argument is fairly simple. The truck was parked illegally. Had the truck not have been parked illegally, the collision never would have occurred and the passenger would still be alive. “But for” the truck being illegally parked, the passenger would still be alive today. The problem is that although the law requires that there be “but for” causation; the law also requires more. That more is called “proximate causation” or “legal causation”. In this case, the overnight parking ban was not a safety regulation, but an “aesthetic” one. Trucks were allowed to park there, and cars could park there overnight. The town just did not want large commercial vehicles parked there for long periods of time. As such legal causation was lacking and the defendant won on summary judgment.
This case brings to mind a case we had several years ago. Our client was under 18, and drove to the Walgreen’s in the middle of the night to get formula for her baby sister. She was rear ended while stopped at a red light. The insurance company did not want to settle the case, so we tried it to a jury. The jury returned a question asking about the importance of my client not being allowed the drive at night. The Judge instructed the jury that they were not to concern themselves with whether or not she was allowed to be on the road, but only with the actual actions of the parties in causing the collision. The jury returned a verdict in her favor. In this case, my client had violated the law, and unlike the tow truck case, this law did relate to safety. But for her being on the road, this rear ender would not have happened. However, she would have been just as rear ended while stopped at the red light if she were 60 or 70, instead of 16 or 17. Her age had nothing to do with causing the accident, and the Judge did not allow the jury to consider it.