Anderson v. Theisen

• Decision Date: 16 June 1950
• Docket Number: No. 35183,35183
• Citation: 43 N.W.2d 272,231 Minn. 369
• Parties: ANDERSON v. THEISEN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 272

43 N.W.2d 272

231 Minn. 369

ANDERSON v. THEISEN.

No. 35183.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 16, 1950.

Syllabus by the Court.

The negligent driving by thieves while fleeing in defendant's automobile, in which he had left his keys in violation of § 9:1-1114.1 of the Minneapolis traffic ordinance, was an intervening efficient cause, breaking the chain of causation between defendant's act in leaving his keys in the ignition switch and the collision with decedent's automobile.

Hall Smith & Hedlund, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Freeman, King, Larson & Peterson, Minneapolis, for respondent.

LORING, Chief Justice.

Action for the wrongful death of Delbert Stenglein by Celesta Anderson, special administratrix of his estate. The trial court in a commendably comprehensive opinion sustained defendant's demurrer. This appeal is from the order sustaining the demurrer.

The facts alleged are that on March 17, 1949, defendant left his automobile unlocked with the keys in the ignition switch and the motor running on a public street in Minneapolis. As a result, it was stolen. During their flight from the scene of the crime, the thieves negligently drove defendant's automobile into decedent's automobile, causing his death.

Section 9:1-1114.1, Minneapolis City Charter and Ordinances (1949) (Perm. ed.) p. 904, in force at the time, reads as follows: 'Every person parking a passenger automobile on any public street or alley in the City shall lock the ignition, remove the key and take the same with him.'

The principal issue presented for decision is whether the violation of the city ordinance was the proximate cause of decedent's death.

In Wannebo v. Gates, 227 Minn. 194, 34 N.W.2d 695, this court was presented with almost the identical situation. There, defendant left his car unlocked with the keys in the ignition switch in violation of this same ordinance. The car was stolen, and several hours after the theft and about five miles from the place thereof it was driven negligently into plaintiff's automobile. We held that the acts giving rise to plaintiff's injury were too remote to charge defendant with responsibility. What distinguishes the Wannebo decision from the case at bar is that here it is alleged that the injury to plaintiff's decedent occurred during flight from the scene of the crime. We are therefore confronted with the question--which we specifically refused to decide in the Wannebo case--whether the allegation that the death of plaintiff's intestate occurred during flight from the scene of the crime constitutes a cause of action.

The definition of proximate cause, to which this court adheres, is stated by Mr. Justice Mitchell in Christianson v. Chicago St. P.M. & O. Ry. Co., 67 Minn. 94, 97, 69 N.W. 640, 641: 'What a man may reasonably anticipate is important, and may be decisive, in determining whether an act is negligent, But is not at all decisive in determining whether that act is the proximate cause of an injury which ensues. If a person had no reasonable ground to anticipate that a particular act would or might result in any injury to anybody, then, of course, the act would not be negligent at all; but, If the act itself is negligent, then the person guilty of it is equally liable for all its natural and proximate consequences, whether he could have foreseen them or not. Otherwise expressed, the law is that if the act is one which the party ought, in the exercise of ordinary care, to have anticipated was liable to result in injury to others, then he is liable for any injury proximately resulting from it, although he could not have anticipated the particular injury which did happen. Consequences which follow in unbroken sequence, without an intervening efficient cause, from the original negligent act, Are natural and proximate; and for such consequences the original wrongdoer is responsible, even though he could not have foreseen the particular results which did follow.' (Italics supplied.)

We are primarily concerned here with the problem of 'intervening efficient cause.' Plaintiff contends that the theft and flight were foreseeable and that, in addition, it could be anticipated that nervousness or fear of apprehension on the part of the thieves would cause them to drive carelessly and negligently.

We need not here decide whether the...