Harris v. Utah Transit Authority

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that Utah’s compara tive negligence statute provides “the kind of comparison of fault that a jury ought to make”
• holding question of negligence in rear-end accident “should have gone to the jury” for proximate cause determination
• stating that a subsequent act of negligence is not a superseding cause if either (a) the original actor \should have realized\ the third person might so act; (b) a reasonable person \would not regard\ the third person's actions as \highly extraordinary\; or (c
• stating that a subsequent act of negligence is not a superseding cause if either (a) the original actor “should have realized” the third person might so act; (b) a reasonable person “would not regard” the third person’s actions as “highly extraordinary”; or (c
• “[a] person’s negligence is not superseded by the negligence of another if the subsequent negligence of another is foreseeable”
• \[a] person's negligence is not superseded by the negligence of another if the subsequent negligence of another is foreseeable\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).