Hebert v. Enos
Massachusetts Appeals Court
806 N.E.2d 452 (Mass. App. 2003)
Hebert (plaintiff), lawfully on Enos's (defendant) property to water flowers, touched an outdoor water faucet and suffered a severe electric shock. He sued Enos for negligence, alleging that Enos had negligently let a second-floor toilet overflow, and that the overflow water interacted with the home's electrical wiring to create the current that shocked him through the outside faucet. Hebert supported this theory with expert engineering testimony corroborating the causal chain. His wife also sued for loss of consortium. Enos moved for summary judgment, arguing the injury wasn't a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an overflowing toilet, and the trial court granted the motion. Hebert appealed.
Whether a plaintiff who proves, through expert testimony, a direct causal link between a defendant's negligence and his injury may still recover damages if that injury is a highly extraordinary or improbable consequence of the negligent act.