As neighbors, we are legally obligated to take proper measures to ensure the consequences of our actions do not harm our neighbors. Liability in such cases often hinges on the defendant’s reasonable ability to foresee the consequences of their actions.
“Foreseeability” is the second element of a proximate cause analysis and is often treated “as the single most important variable” in negligence cases.[1] It demands that a person of ordinary intelligence should have anticipated the general dangers created by their act. If such a danger would not have been anticipated by a person of ordinary intelligence, the resulting harm would not be deemed “foreseeable.”
In Tenaris Bay City v. Ellisor, thirty homeowners sued a neighboring pipe manufacturing facility for the negligent construction of its drainage system which they alleged caused flooding in their homes.[2] Experts from both sides testified to the validity of the claims but ultimately the jury held, and the court of appeals affirmed, a negligence verdict.[3]
The Defendant attempted to escape liability by asserting that Hurricane Harvey was an act of God and therefore was not foreseeable.[4] While this is true, the Court made it clear that it was foreseeable that a faulty drainage system would flood nearby properties.[5] The Court focused its analysis on the general harm, which is flooding in this case, and not on the specific event that caused the adverse result (Hurricane Harvey). It noted that the area was prone to flooding and that this was a well-known issue.[6] Thus, anyone building a drainage system should have expected that the area would flood from time to time if the drainage system was not built properly. This supports the Court’s conclusion that it was foreseeable that a negligently built drainage system would result in flooding.
A foreseeability analysis is an objective one. It is insufficient for the defendant to have been unaware of the danger created by their actions. Rather, the question is should the defendant have been aware of the general danger created by their actions? To answer this question, courts attempt to place the defendant in the shoes of a person of ordinary intelligence (“a reasonably prudent person”). This objective standard aims to achieve a uniform application of the law created by a socially accepted standard for liability.
These rules emphasize the importance of forethought when making decisions. Individuals can be held responsible for results they did not intend or even know would occur. This heightened standard warrants individuals to pause and reflect on the consequences of their actions, thereby limiting harm to others.
[1] Werner Enters v. Blake, 672 S.W.3d 554, 55 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2023).
[1] Tenaris Bay City v. Ellisor, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 6871
[1] Id.
[1] Id. at 15.
[1] Id.
[1] Id.
