Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. – Case Brief
Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry., 191 Wis. 610, 211 N.W. 913 (1927).
Facts: Two different forest fires merged before reaching Kingston’s (P) property. The resulting fire burned Kingston’s property. Kingston sued Chicago & N.W. Railroad (D), alleging that each fire had been set by different locomotives owned by D. At trial the jury found that both fires were set by D’s locomotives and that both fires were a proximate cause of the damage. D appealed, asserting that there was no evidence to support a finding that D had caused either fire.
Issue: If concurrent causes by two or more different parties result in damage that would have resulted by either cause independently of the other, can either party be held liable for all of the damage?
Holding and Rule: Yes. Each party whose actions contribute to damage resulting from concurrent causes can be held liable for all damage produced, if their actions would have produced the damage independently of the others.
The court held that the evidence only supported a finding that one of the fires was caused by D. There were two separate, independent, and distinct agencies, each of which constituted the proximate cause of P’s damage, and either of which, in the absence of the other, would have accomplished such result.
Any one of two or more joint tortfeasors whose concurrent acts of negligence result in injury are each responsible for the entire damage resulting from their concurrent acts of negligence. The same is true when two causes concur in producing an injury to another, either of which causes would produce it regardless of the other. If each fire was of known origin, then each party responsible would be liable for the damage as a whole. P does not have the burden of proving the origin of both fires.
Disposition: Affirmed – judgment for P.