Plaintiff was injured when she was struck by the defendant’s taxi. Defendant parked the taxi and left it unlocked with the key in the ignition. The taxi was then stolen and shortly after struck the plaintiff. Court held that the doctrine of superseding cause applies in cases where a third party is criminally reckless. Also, held that the jury’s finding that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries and the theft was a superseding cause of the injuries are legally inconsistent. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to a new trial.
Related Posts:
Connecticut Personal Injury Notice Laws
This post deals with Connecticut Personal Injury Notice Laws. When should I see a lawyer? Can I resolve this myself?
What to Do Following a Glastonbury Burn Injury
Burn injuries can be severe and lead to long-term effects. Some of the common causes of burns are fire, chemicals,
Legal Aspects of Traumatic Brain Injury Cases in Manchester
Catastrophic injuries are always going to be a concern, especially for those who are engaged in strenuous physical
Glastonbury Car Accident Damages
An auto collision can cause significant injuries and property damage. The expenses incurred by these damages are often