## Facts

- Margo Ann Trevino, age two, visited her grandparents on a farm they operated for John C. Hirsch.
- Several children were present on the farm, including a thirteen-year-old boy, David.
- With adult permission, the children attempted to build a small fire to roast marshmallows.
- David obtained a small amount of gasoline by draining it from a farm gasoline tank’s hose into a tin can; some gasoline remained in the hose after normal use.
- As David poured gasoline on damp wood, the gasoline ignited; he dropped the can into a bucket of water, and burning gasoline splashed onto Margo, causing third-degree burns.
- The gasoline tank was used for farm fuel; the pump switch was inside a locked building.
- The hose was stored in a receptacle designed to be padlocked, but it was not locked.
- Plaintiff claimed Hirsch was negligent for not locking the hose receptacle and for not requiring the tenant-operators to drain residual gasoline from the hose.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiff’s evidence, viewed most favorably to plaintiff, established a prima facie negligence case against Hirsch sufficient to go to the jury.
2. Whether Hirsch’s alleged omissions regarding the gasoline hose were a substantial factor and legal (proximate) cause of the child’s injuries despite intervening conduct by others.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdict for Hirsch.
- Even assuming Hirsch may have been negligent in failing to lock the hose or require draining it, plaintiff’s evidence did not show that such negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
- The intervening actions of David in using gasoline to start the fire, and the adults’ permission for the children’s unsupervised fire-building activity, were treated as the more direct causal contributors.

## Legal Principles

- A negligence claim requires proof that the defendant’s breach was both a cause in fact and a legal (proximate) cause of the injury.
- Liability does not attach unless the defendant’s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
- Where intervening human conduct materially contributes to the injury, an antecedent omission may be too remote to constitute legal cause.
- A directed verdict is proper when the plaintiff’s evidence fails, as a matter of law, to establish a prima facie case on essential negligence elements, including causation.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiff’s evidence did not permit a reasonable finding that Hirsch’s handling of the gasoline hose was a substantial factor or proximate cause of the child’s burns, so the negligence claim was properly removed from the jury and judgment for Hirsch was affirmed.


Trevino v. Hirsch, 492 P.2d 899 (Colo. Ct. App. 1971)