Town of Lyons v. Watt

• Citation: 95 P. 949,43 Colo. 238
• Parties: TOWN OF LYONS v. WATT.
• Decision Date: 04 May 1908
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

95 P. 949

43 Colo. 238

TOWN OF LYONS v. WATT.

Supreme Court of Colorado

May 4, 1908

Appeal from District Court, Boulder County; Christian A. Bennett Judge.

Action by Emma Watt against the town of Lyons. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

H. M. Minor, for appellant.

Grant E. Halderman and J. M. Bender, for appellee.

GABBERT J.

Appellee plaintiff below, brought suit against appellant, as defendant, to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by the negligence of the defendant. A trial on the merits resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals.

It appears from the testimony that on a vacant lot facing on Main street in the town of Lyons there was an unguarded excavation about two feet distant from the sidewalk. This lot is located about 100 feet east of the intersection of Main street and Fifth avenue. Plaintiff fell into this excavation, and was injured. It had existed for upwards of two years, and she knew of its existence, having frequently traveled over the sidewalk in front of the lot in question. She was upwards of 52 years of age at the time of her injury, and her eyesight was not good. The circumstances under which whe fell into the excavation are as follows, as stated by herself: On the evening she was injured, which was in the month of June, she went to church. It was dark when she started for home. On reaching Main street, instead of taking the sidewalk, she kept the middle of the street for the purpose of avoiding the danger of falling into the excavation. When she reached a point on the street opposite the lot where the excavation was located, she mistook the lot, or opening, as she expressed it, for the road going south to her home, which was Fifth avenue, and turned to the south. In so doing she stumbled and fell upon the sidewalk opposite the excavation, and, to use her own language 'Being in a dazed condition, I got up, saw the open space, supposed I was going to the road, and fell right in that excavation.'

Conceding for the sake of the argument, that the town of Lyons was guilty of negligence in failing to erect a guard rail on the walk opposite the excavation, the only question necessary to determine is whether or not this omission on the part of the town was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. A defendant is not liable for acts of negligence where an injury is occasioned by an independent, intervening act which he could not have reasonably anticipated would be the result of his negligence, although the injury for which it is sought to hold him responsible would not have occurred except for his negligence. In this respect the law is so well settled that citation of authority is not necessary. The difficulty arises in determining when it is applicable, so that each case based upon negligence, when it is sought to apply it, must be analyzed for the purpose of ascertaining what was the proximate cause of the injury to the person injured. 'Proximate cause' has been defined to be 'that cause which, in natural and continued sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produced the result complained of, and without which that result would not have occurred.' D. & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Sipes, 26...