Scribd
Upload
4 views2 pages

Demers (Foreseeability)

In the case of Demers v. Rosa, the Connecticut Court of Appeals ruled that a plaintiff can only support a negligence claim if their harm falls within the scope of foreseeable risk created by the defendant's negligent conduct. The court found that while the dog’s roaming was a contributing factor, the direct cause of the officer's fall was the slippery driveway, which was not a foreseeable consequence of the dog's presence. Consequently, the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed, and the case was remanded in favor of the defendant, Rosa.

Uploaded by

Zihan Yang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views2 pages

Demers (Foreseeability)

In the case of Demers v. Rosa, the Connecticut Court of Appeals ruled that a plaintiff can only support a negligence claim if their harm falls within the scope of foreseeable risk created by the defendant's negligent conduct. The court found that while the dog’s roaming was a contributing factor, the direct cause of the officer's fall was the slippery driveway, which was not a foreseeable consequence of the dog's presence. Consequently, the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed, and the case was remanded in favor of the defendant, Rosa.

Uploaded by

Zihan Yang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Demers v.

Rosa

Connecticut Court of Appeals

925 A.2d 1165 (2007)

Rule of Law

A plaintiff may support a negligence claim only if the plaintiff’s harm is within the scope of
foreseeable risk created by the defendant’s negligent conduct.

Facts

On a snowy day, two police officers, Edward Demers and Alton Cronin, responded to a
complaint of a roaming dog. The dog’s owner, Steven Rosa, frequently allowed his dogs to
roam, resulting in complaints from local residents. Cronin captured the dog and placed it in the
back of his patrol car. While Demers was standing next to Cronin’s patrol car and speaking with
Cronin, Demers slipped and fell, sustaining injuries. Demers (plaintiff) sued Rosa (defendant),
arguing that his injuries were caused by Rosa negligently permitting the dog to roam. The trial
court awarded judgment in favor of Demers, holding that it was reasonably foreseeable that
negligently allowing a dog to roam would result in complaints to the police department, and that
an officer might be injured during the course of responding to those complaints. Rosa appealed.

Issue

May a plaintiff support a negligence claim if the plaintiff’s harm is not within the scope of
foreseeable risk created by the defendant’s negligent conduct?
Holding and Reasoning (Harper, J.)
No. A plaintiff may support a negligence claim only if the plaintiff’s harm is within the scope of
foreseeable risk created by the defendant’s negligent conduct. The test for actual causation, or
causation in fact, is whether, but for the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff’s injury would have
occurred. Actual cause can be limitless. Because of this, proximate cause establishes a cutoff for
when a tortfeasor may be held liable for the consequences of his or her negligence. Proximate
cause is based on whether the plaintiff’s harm is within the scope of foreseeable risk created by
the defendant’s negligent conduct. In this case, a police officer responding to a complaint of a
roaming dog is within the scope of risk of negligently allowing a dog to roam. The idea that the
police officer might slip and fall while chasing or restraining the dog, or as a result of being
startled by the dog, is also within the scope of risk. However, an officer’s slipping and falling
after the dog has been secured in a patrol car, and without any contributing behavior from the
dog, is not within the scope of risk. In this case, the direct cause of Demers’ fall was the slippery
driveway, not the dog’s presence. The dog’s roaming was, at best, an indirect cause of the fall. In
addition, the fact that a weather related accident may generally be foreseeable when a police
officer responds to a complaint on a snowy day does not mean the accident in this particular case
was foreseeable. It was not reasonably foreseeable that, by allowing the dog to roam on a snowy
day, a police officer would slip and fall while standing next to a vehicle containing the dog, and
not in the process of catching the dog. Rosa is not responsible for the unforeseen consequences
of his negligence. The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded with
direction to enter judgment in Rosa’s favor.

You might also like