City of Piqua v. Morris

Citations

• 98 Ohio St. (N.S.) 42

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Act of God■ — Proximate cause — Superior force and concurrent negligence — Floods — Embankment breaks — Charge to jury.</p> <p>1. The proximate cause of a result is that which in a natural and continued sequence contributes to produce the result, without which it would not have happened. The fact that some other cause concurred with the negligence of a defendant in producing an injury, does not relieve him from liability unless it is shown such other cause would have produced the injury independently of defendant’s negligence.</p> <p>2. In the construction and maintenance of a hydraulic, or similar work, a municipality, or other owner, is required to use ■ordinary skill and foresight to prevent injury to others in times of floods to be reasonably anticipated; and if injury is caused by the negligence of such owner, he is liable in damages, provided his negligence is one of the proximate causes of the injury, although it concurred with other causes, including the act of -God.</p> <p>3. In order to -fix liability on an owner in such case, it must be shown that his negligence concurred with the act of God in causing the injury; but if the act of God, such as an extraordinary flood, was so overwhelming and destructive as to produce the injury, whether the defendant had been negligent or not, his negligence cannot be held to be the proximate cause of the injury.</p> <p>4. Where from a consideration of t’he whole charge of the court, it is seen that the jury has been given a comprehensive and intelligent instruction concerning the issues and the application of technical terms used, the fact that a particular term is also used in a special charge, or in other parts of the general charge, without such explanation, should not be held to be erroneous.</p>