Opinion ID: 740982
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Superseding or Intervening Cause

Text: 30 The test for what constitutes a superseding cause reflects the de-emphasis of causation in strict products liability litigation. Klages explains that a reasonably foreseeable intervening act cannot satisfy the requirements of a superseding cause. 5 367 A.2d at 313. In a section 402A strict liability tort claim such as that in the instant case, a negligent intervening act, to relieve defendant of accountability, must be ... 'so extraordinary as not to have been reasonably foreseeable.'  Eshbach v. W.T. Grant's and Co., 481 F.2d 940, 945 (3d Cir.1973)(quoting Dorsey v. Yoder Co., 331 F.Supp. 753, 764 (E.D.Pa.1971)(quoting Wilson v. American Chain and Cable Co., 364 F.2d 558, 562 (3d Cir.1966))). Similarly, in Baker v. Outboard Marine Corp., 595 F.2d 176, 182 (3d Cir.1979), we held that the intervening negligence of a third party could serve as a superseding cause of injuries to shield defendant manufacturer from liability to plaintiff only if it were so extraordinary as not to have been reasonably foreseeable. Id. at 182 (quoting Eshbach, 481 F.2d at 945). See also Williford, 783 P.2d at 237 (act may constitute superseding cause only if, in addition to being unforeseeable by defendant, it was highly extraordinary). 31 In short, even if an intervening but foreseeable action is responsible for the major share of a strict products liability injury, that action cannot ordinarily be held to be the legal cause of the injury. Instead, it is removed from the picture,and liability attaches to the remaining causal actor or actors. Here, if the possibility of a person standing in the path of the Gradall is found to be foreseeable or ordinary, Mr. Parks' actions cannot legally be viewed as disrupting or otherwise playing a part in the causal chain that culminated in his death.