Hain v. Jamison

One night, Holly Hain, decedent and wife of Andrew Hain (plaintiff), stopped her car along the side of a rural road and exited her vehicle to try to move a calf from the road. The calf had escaped from Drumm Family Farm, Inc. (the farm) (defendant). Leah Jamison (defendant) was driving around a curve and could not stop in time to avoid hitting Holly. Andrew brought a negligence action against the farm, Leah, and Angela Jamison (defendant), the owner of the vehicle that hit Holly, alleging that the farm was negligent in failing to prevent the calf from escaping and in failing to remove it from the roadway and that Leah drove in a negligent manner. All the defendants filed crossclaims seeking indemnification and contribution, and the farm sought summary judgment, arguing that the only proximate causes of Holly’s death were the fact that she got out of her vehicle to move the calf and Leah’s negligence in driving her car. Leah and Angela objected to the farm’s motion for summary judgment, asserting that whether Holly’s death was a foreseeable result of the original act of negligence by the farm was a question of fact for a jury. A trial court agreed and held that it could not determine as a matter of law that Holly’s conduct in getting out of her car to try to remove the calf from the road was unforeseeable and extraordinary enough to break the causal chain. Thus, the trial court did not grant summary judgment, and the farm appealed. An appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment and dismissing Andrew’s complaint and Leah and Angela’s crossclaims against the farm. The appellate court reasoned that the farm’s negligence in allowing the calf’s presence in the road only gave rise to the occasion for Holly’s behavior but did not cause her to walk into the road where the car hit her. Andrew did not appeal. However, Leah and Angela appealed the appellate court’s dismissal of their crossclaim against the farm.