In Moore v. Hagge, the plaintiff was hit by a car driven by Billie Hagge. The plaintiff not only sued Hagge, but also the city of Des Moines, alleging that it failed to provide a safe walkway. The guts of the plaintiff’s argument was that the city designed the walkway in such a manner that it forced pedestrians to walk “dangerously” close to traffic.
However, the plaintiff had no independent recollection of Hagge striking him with his motor vehicle. Additionally, the plaintiff could not remember where he was on the walkway when Hagge struck him with his car.
Des Moines moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish that its negligence was a proximate cause of his injuries. The plaintiff responded, asserting that the city’s negligence did cause his injuries. The plaintiff supported its conclusion by providing the court with a list of his previous walking habits at the accident’s location.
The trial court agreed with the city and dismissed the plaintiff’s case. On appeal, Division I wrote:
Evidence of Moore’s walking habits cannot cure the lack of evidentiary support for the element of proximate cause because this evidence does not establish that the harm, more probable than not, happened in such a way that the City should be held liable. Moore’s habit evidence does not make any one sequence of events leading to impact more likely than one or more alternate sequences where the City has no liability.
Therefore, the trial court’s decision to dismiss Des Moines was affirmed.