New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently addressed the issue of foreseeability and proximate cause in the unusual case of Amaya v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit after sustaining an injury while attempting to move a tree branch that had fallen onto his property from the adjacent property. The owner of the adjacent property did not care for or maintain his property which consisted of vacant land with overgrown grass and trees and dead branches. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that both the tree branch falling and the subsequent injuries were not foreseeable.
The trial judge disagreed with defendant’s position that the tree branch falling was not foreseeable, and included scathing language in his opinion. “The defendant can’t simply sit back, do nothing to their property and then say they had no notice that there was anything wrong with the property, there was anything wrong with the branch.” However, the trial court found that plaintiff’s attempt to move the tree was “too attenuated to be foreseeable by a defendant who was negligent in the maintenance of his tree,” and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
The Appellate Division agreed with the trial judge’s determination that the tree falling was foreseeable. However, it disagreed that plaintiff’s actions in moving the tree branch, and the subsequent injury were too attenuated to be foreseeable. Rather, the court explained that it is entirely foreseeable that an owner would attempt to move the adjacent property’s fallen tree branch, particularly where the adjacent property owner is an absentee. The Appellate Division reversed, noting that the jury should have determined whether plaintiff’s conduct was a superseding or intervening cause that would negate a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant.
Thanks to Alison Weintraub for her contribution.