Bad things happen to good people, sometimes because good people make a mistake. There is often an inclination to seek redress, to demand that someone else assume responsibility for the error. The U.S. legal system is notorious for getting bogged down with lawsuits directed against corporations for something that a disinterested observer might say the companies couldn't reasonably have foreseen.
The Supreme Court of Canada has just wrestled with such a case, and in a 9-0 ruling found that the physically injured party was not legally injured. The victim of the misfortune was, as the trial judge had concluded, the author of that misfortune, and there weren't grounds to pin the responsibility on others. This is of no comfort to the person pressing the case -- Ralph Robert Hanke of Edmonton, who suffered terrible burns -- but it is reassuring that the system knows when to draw a line.
The accident was horrendous. Mr. Hanke, employed by the City of Edmonton to operate an ice-resurfacing machine, turned on the water after a water hose was mistakenly connected to the machine's gas tank. As Chief Justice BeverleyMcLachlin writes, "When hot water overfilled the gasoline tank, vaporized gasoline was released into the air. It was ignited by an overhead heater, causing an explosion and fire." Mr. Hanke sued the manufacturer and distributor of the machine for damages, alleging that the gasoline tank and the water tank were too close together and looked too much alike.
In his 2003 decision, the trial judge dismissed the arguments. Mr. Hanke had admitted that (in the judge's paraphrase) "when he looked at the unit from behind he knew precisely which was the water tank and which was the gasoline tank" and "he was fully familiar with the fact that hot water should not be introduced into the gasoline tank." One tank was much taller than the other. The gasoline tank bore the label "Gasoline Only." The accident, the judge said, "was caused by operator error and had nothing to do with the design or manufacture of the machine."
The Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, saying the judge hadn't sufficiently analyzed the questions of who caused what and what might reasonably have been foreseen. The Supreme Court ran through the appeal court's arguments like a power mower through soft grass. For instance, it didn't buy the insistence that the trial judge should have considered "the seriousness of the injury and the relative financial positions of the parties." The Chief Justice wrote: "Foreseeability depends on what a reasonable person would anticipate, not on the seriousness of the plaintiff's injuries (as in this case) or the depth of the defendant's pockets."
The appeal court said the trial judge shouldn't have used the "but for" test. Under that test, the injured party has to prove that, "but for" the negligent act or omission of the one being sued, the injury wouldn't have occurred. The Supreme Court said the judge had every reason to use that test, since a defendant shouldn't be required to compensate an injured person for negligent conduct unless there is "a substantial connection between the injury and defendant's conduct." The test "ensures that a defendant will not be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries where they 'may very well be due to factors unconnected to the defendant and not the fault of anyone.' "
Mistakes happen. Great pain can result. And sometimes, painful as it is, that's where the tale ends.