Court Opinion

ID: 9791810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:18:27.362879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:38.710707
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion. However, I concur in that part of Mr. Justice O’Connell’s opinion pointing out that the terminology of “proximate cause” is misleading and, therefore, on occasion is responsible for erroneous results. Mr. Justice O’Connell’s remedy is to abandon the “traditional proximate cause” formula. I am unwilling at this time to do so because I am uncertain whether or not I fully enough comprehend the formula Mr. Justice O’Connell proposes so as to visualize the results that would follow from its application to future cases which will be before this court.
Therefore, I would examine future cases of this type with the knowledge that the language of the proximate cause doctrine is deceiving. I would likewise attempt to determine the result which would follow in such cases from the application of the proposal advocated by Mr. Justice O’Connell. By such a procedure I would hope to determine whether or not Mr. Justice O’Connell’s proposal is preferable to what we now have. It is entirely conceivable that some modification of the present law or the proposed law will be found ultimately to be the most preferable.