## Facts

- A freight train operated by the railroad collided with plaintiffs’ horse-drawn wagon at a grade crossing.
- The collision killed the horse, destroyed the wagon, and scattered the wagon’s contents (including empty barrels, a blanket, and a keg of cider).
- The wagon driver was left stunned and largely unable to protect the property immediately after the crash.
- Bystanders took portions of the scattered property after the collision.
- The railroad had detectives on the train to guard the railroad’s own freight from theft, but they did not protect plaintiffs’ property.
- Plaintiffs sought damages for the horse and wagon and for the value of the missing items taken after the crash.

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint alleging the goods were “destroyed” permitted recovery when the evidence showed the goods were taken by thieves after the collision.
2. Whether the railroad’s negligence in causing the collision could be treated as the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ loss from theft, or whether the thieves’ criminal acts were a superseding cause as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs, including damages for the value of the items taken after the collision.
- The pleading was sufficient: alleging the goods were “destroyed” allowed proof and recovery for loss by theft where the case was fully tried and the loss was complete to plaintiffs.
- Proximate cause and intervening cause were treated as matters ordinarily for the jury on these facts.
- The jury could reasonably find the collision set in motion conditions under which theft was a foreseeable consequence; the thieves’ acts did not automatically break the chain of causation.

## Legal Principles

- An intervening act, including a third party’s wrongdoing, does not relieve an original negligent actor of liability if the intervening act should reasonably have been foreseen as a consequence of the risk created.
- Proximate cause and whether an intervening act supersedes earlier negligence are generally jury questions unless only one conclusion is permissible as a matter of law.
- Pleadings are construed to permit recovery consistent with the loss proved when the case is fully tried on the merits and the defendant is not unfairly surprised; total loss by theft may be treated as “destruction” for damages purposes.

## Conclusion

The railroad remained liable not only for the direct collision damage but also for the post-collision theft of scattered property because the jury could find the theft a foreseeable result of the negligent collision, and the pleadings were adequate to support recovery for that loss.


Brauer v. N.Y. Cent. & H.R.R. Co., 91 N.J.L. 190, 103 A. 166 (N.J. Ct. Err. & App. 1918)