Master New York's high court clarifies proximate cause and intervening/superseding cause when a negligent third party's vehicle enters a negligently secured worksite. with this comprehensive case brief.
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. is a cornerstone New York Court of Appeals decision on proximate cause and intervening acts in negligence. It is frequently taught to illustrate that an intervening act—especially the negligent or medically induced conduct of a third party—does not automatically sever the causal chain. Instead, courts focus on whether the harm that occurred was within the scope of the risk created by the defendant's negligence and whether the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable.
The case's lasting contribution is its clear articulation of when an intervening act becomes a superseding cause as a matter of law and when, more commonly, the matter should go to the jury. By reaffirming that foreseeability and the "substantial factor" test are generally jury questions, the opinion refines the boundaries of duty and proximate cause, providing a practical framework for analyzing accident chains involving multiple negligent actors.
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 414 N.E.2d 666, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166 (N.Y. 1980)
Felix Contracting Corp. served as a contractor on a street excavation/repaving project in New York City. Plaintiff Derdiarian, employed by another company at the site, was stationed near the roadway heating and applying a sealant in a kettle of boiling enamel as part of the work. The construction zone was adjacent to live traffic and, according to plaintiff's evidence, lacked adequate safeguards—such as substantial barriers, proper barricading, channeling devices, and flagmen—to protect workers from intruding vehicles, despite contractual and common-law obligations to maintain a safe work area. During the operation, a motorist driving along the street suffered an epileptic seizure, lost control of his car, left the travel lane, and crashed into the worksite. The vehicle struck the plaintiff and the kettle, causing boiling enamel to splash onto him and inflict severe burn injuries. Plaintiff sued Felix Contracting for negligent failure to provide a safe worksite and also proceeded against the driver and the driver's physician (based on allegations related to the driver's medical condition and driving). A jury found for plaintiff and apportioned fault among the defendants. On appeal, Felix argued that the driver's conduct constituted a superseding cause as a matter of law, relieving Felix of liability. The case reached the New York Court of Appeals on whether the contractor could be held liable given the intervening conduct of the motorist (and any negligence by his physician).
Does a motorist's loss of control due to an epileptic seizure (and any related negligence by the motorist or his physician) constitute a superseding cause as a matter of law that breaks the causal chain, or may a contractor still be held liable where its failure to adequately secure a roadside worksite foreseeably exposed workers to the risk of intruding vehicles?
In New York, a defendant's negligence is a proximate cause of an injury if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. An intervening act will break the causal nexus—and become a superseding cause—only when it is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant's conduct. Whether an intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant's negligence is generally a question for the trier of fact. A defendant is liable for harms that fall within the scope of the reasonably foreseeable risks created by its conduct; the precise manner in which the harm occurs or the exact extent of injury need not be foreseeable.
The intervening conduct of the motorist (and any related medical negligence) did not, as a matter of law, constitute a superseding cause. It was for the jury to determine whether Felix Contracting's failure to secure the worksite was a substantial factor in causing the injury and whether the vehicle intrusion was a foreseeable risk of that negligence. The Court of Appeals upheld the jury's ability to find proximate cause against the contractor and rejected the argument that the driver's medical episode automatically severed liability.
The Court of Appeals emphasized that proximate cause revolves around whether the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in producing the injury and whether the harm fell within the scope of the risk created by that negligence. Here, the contractor was responsible for maintaining a safe roadside work environment, and the record contained evidence that the worksite lacked adequate barriers, channeling, and flagging to protect workers from live traffic. The risk that a vehicle might leave its lane—through negligence, inattention, or even a medical event—and intrude into the work zone is exactly the type of hazard that proper precautions are meant to mitigate. Thus, the occurrence of a car entering the site and striking a worker was not so extraordinary or unforeseeable as to break the causal chain as a matter of law. The court clarified that an intervening act severs liability only when it is unforeseeable in the normal course or wholly independent of the risk created. The motorist's seizure-induced loss of control did not qualify as such an extraordinary event in the context of inadequate traffic protection at a street construction site. Moreover, a defendant need not foresee the precise manner of injury (being splashed by boiling enamel from a struck kettle) or its extent; it suffices that the general type of harm—worker injury from vehicular intrusion—was within the risk. Because reasonable minds could differ on whether Felix's negligence was a substantial factor and whether the intervening act was foreseeable, the issues were properly for the jury. Conclusively declaring a superseding cause would improperly remove classic proximate cause questions from the factfinder.
Derdiarian is a leading authority on intervening and superseding causation. It teaches that proximate cause typically remains a jury issue and that defendants cannot escape liability simply because a third party's negligent or medically induced act stands between their negligence and the plaintiff's harm. For students, the case operationalizes two core ideas: (1) the substantial factor test in New York and (2) the scope-of-risk approach to foreseeability. It also offers a practical template for analyzing multi-actor accident chains and for arguing when causation should—versus should not—be decided as a matter of law.
An intervening act becomes superseding only if it is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of and far removed from the risks created by the defendant's negligence. If the intervening act falls within the very class of hazards the defendant's duty was meant to guard against, it will not cut off liability.
Because the contractor's alleged negligence—failing to secure a roadside worksite—created a foreseeable risk that a vehicle, for any number of reasons (inattention, negligence, or a medical event), might intrude into the work zone and injure workers. That type of vehicular intrusion is a foreseeable hazard of inadequate traffic control, so the seizure did not constitute a superseding cause as a matter of law.
New York applies the substantial factor test: the defendant's negligence is a proximate cause if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's harm. The exact manner or extent of the injury need not be foreseeable; it is sufficient that the general type of harm was within the scope of the risk created by the defendant's conduct.
Generally a question of fact for the jury. Courts should remove the issue from the jury only when there is no room for reasonable difference and the intervening act is clearly extraordinary and unforeseeable as a matter of law.
Derdiarian refines the role of foreseeability at the proximate cause stage by asking whether the harm fell within the scope of risks that made the defendant's conduct negligent. It complements duty analyses (like in Palsgraf) by focusing not on who is owed a duty, but on whether the risks that materialized were among those the duty sought to prevent.
They must implement robust traffic control and barrier systems at roadside worksites. Contractual safety obligations and industry standards matter: failure to deploy adequate flaggers, barricades, and channeling devices can expose them to liability when predictable traffic intrusions injure workers.
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. solidifies a key negligence principle: a defendant remains liable when its breach creates a foreseeable risk and is a substantial factor in the resulting harm, even if a third party's intervening conduct is also negligent—or arises from a medical event. The court's analysis underscores that the law is less concerned with the exact sequence of events than with whether the injury stems from the very hazard that made the conduct negligent.
For students and practitioners, the case offers a durable framework for evaluating intervening acts: ask whether the intervening conduct was extraordinary and unforeseeable, or instead a normal consequence of the danger the defendant created. Most often, as Derdiarian teaches, that determination belongs to the jury, not the court.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →