## Facts

- William Hebert and Carl Enos were neighbors in Framingham, Massachusetts.
- Before leaving on vacation, Enos asked Hebert to water his flowers; Hebert agreed and had watered them for three days without incident.
- On July 4, 2000, while watering the flowers, Hebert held Enos’s garden hose and reached for the outside faucet on Enos’s house.
- When Hebert grabbed the faucet, he received a severe electric shock that threw him through the air, melted his sneakers and glasses, set his pants on fire, and dislodged his dental plate.
- Hebert suffered serious injuries, including burns, exit wounds, and mouth damage.
- Fire department responders found standing water in the basement and traced water to a second-floor toilet; they shut off water to the toilet and the home’s main electrical breaker.
- A town electrical inspector observed water in the basement and water emerging from an upstairs dining-room light fixture and did not observe abnormalities in the basement electrical components.
- Hebert alleged Enos negligently repaired the second-floor toilet, causing an overflow that contacted the home’s electrical system and energized the exterior faucet.
- An engineer opined that contact between water from the overflow and the electrical system could have produced a current that energized the exterior faucet.

## Issues

1. Whether, assuming negligence in repairing the toilet and a causal chain to the electrified exterior faucet, Hebert’s injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Enos’s conduct for purposes of proximate cause.
2. Whether the event was so highly extraordinary and remote that proximate cause could be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed summary judgment for Enos.
- The court assumed, for summary-judgment purposes, that a negligent toilet repair caused the overflow and that the overflow could have energized the exterior faucet.
- Even with that assumption, the court held the type and location of the harm were not within the range of risks a reasonable person would foresee from negligent toilet repair.
- The court concluded the injury was “highly extraordinary” and “so remote in everyday life” that Enos could not be required to guard against it, defeating legal causation.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence liability requires more than factual causation; the plaintiff’s harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct.
- Proximate cause limits liability for consequences that are highly extraordinary or too remote in ordinary experience.
- Although foreseeability is commonly a jury question, a court may resolve proximate cause as a matter of law when the injury mechanism and resulting harm fall outside any reasonable scope of risk.
- On summary judgment, a court may assume the plaintiff’s version of the causal chain yet still find no legal causation if the resulting harm is unforeseeable as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because, even crediting the plaintiffs’ account that negligent toilet repairs led to an energized outdoor faucet, the resulting severe shock at the exterior faucet was an extraordinary and remote consequence that was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore not a legally cognizable proximate cause of the defendant’s conduct.


Hebert v. Enos, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 817, 806 N.E.2d 452 (2004)