P was driving in his truck when he was struck by D's train.
P could not see D's train approaching and D's conductor could not see the truck until he was 60 feet from the crossing. There were ringing bells warning of the approaching train.
The train was travelling over the speed limit. (37 in 25)
Procedural History:
Trial court found for P.
COA affirmed.
LA Supreme Court reversed, found for D.
Issues:
When is negligence a cause in fact?
Holding/Rule:
Negligence is a cause in fact of the harm to another if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
If the harm would have occurred irrespective of the negligence, then it is not a substantial factor.
Reasoning:
Negligence is not actionable unless it is a cause in fact of the harm for which recovery is sought.
D's actions need not be the sole cause of the harm.
Negligence is a cause in fact of the harm to another if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
If the harm would have occurred irrespective of the negligence, then it is not a substantial factor.
The engineer testified that the train would have hit the truck even if it had been going the speed limit.
The theory that the D could have possibly escaped harm if the train had been going slower must be rejected; it is pure conjecture and devoid of evidentiary basis.
The accident almost certainly would have occurred irrespective of the excessive speed of the train; thus, it was not a substantial factor in the accident.
