This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P hired D to install a burglar alarm system in P's liquor store. D installed the system but failed to connect the wires leading from the hold-up buttons to the burglar alarm control panel and failed to test the system after installation of the alarm buttons. P was robbed, and the store manager pressed alarm buttons to activate the system. There was testimony that if the alarm had functioned the police would have been notified within 30 to 45 seconds. The police station was located only a couple of miles from the liquor store. The robber remained in the store five to ten minutes after the alarm buttons were pressed. The testimony was that the police would have arrived in a few minutes. The jury determined that P’s loss was the result of D’s negligent failure to install the alarm properly. P got the judgment for $6,839. D appealed. D argues in part that its action could not be a proximate cause of the loss suffered by P because it was the action of some third party, which caused the loss.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.