266 Neb. 601, 667 N.W.2d 244 (2003)
On April 29, 2000, in the early morning hours, Amy M. Stahlecker was driving a 1997 Ford Explorer equipped with Firestone Wilderness AT radial tires in a remote area of western Douglas County, Nebraska, when one of the tires failed and rendered the vehicle inoperable.1
Richard Cook encountered Amy alone and stranded as a direct result of the tire failure.2 He proceeded to abduct, terrorize, rape, and murder her.3 The petition alleges no physical injury to Amy from the tire failure itself.4
Susan Stahlecker and Dale Stahlecker, Amy's parents and special administrators of her estate, filed a civil action for damages against Ford Motor Company as manufacturer of the vehicle, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. as manufacturer of the tire, and Cook.5
The Stahleckers alleged that the tire failure resulted from a defect in design, manufacturing, or recommended air pressure.6 Ford and Firestone possessed actual knowledge long before April 29, 2000, of the tires' defective nature and propensity to cause stranding.7 The companies withheld this knowledge from consumers while advertising the products as dependable.8 They knew or should have known of the potential for dangerous situations including criminal activity arising from breakdowns in remote areas.9
The Stahleckers asserted four theories of recovery against Ford and Firestone.10 The theories were negligence, res ipsa loquitur, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty.11 They sought damages for Amy's mental and physical suffering prior to death as well as their own losses including deprivation of Amy's aid, advice, affection, companionship, and future contributions.12
The district court for Dodge County sustained demurrers by Ford and Firestone to the original petition.13 The court granted leave to amend.14 It then sustained demurrers to the amended petition and dismissed the action as to those parties without further leave to amend.15 The Stahleckers appealed and successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Nebraska to bypass the Nebraska Court of Appeals.16
Whether the amended petition states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Ford and Firestone under negligence and strict liability theories?17
To withstand a demurrer a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, meaning a narrative of events showing legal liability.18 Negligence requires proof of duty, breach, and proximate cause, with foreseeability relevant to both duty and cause.19 Strict liability requires proof that the product was defective when placed on the market, that the defect rendered it unreasonably dangerous, and that the defect was the proximate cause of injury.20
No. The Stahleckers alleged that a defect in the Firestone tire on the Ford Explorer caused the vehicle to become inoperable in a remote area.21 Ford and Firestone knew of the defect and its propensity to strand users.22 They failed to warn or recall the products.23 These allegations establish a duty and breach under both negligence and strict liability.24 The petition further alleges that Cook encountered Amy as a direct result of the stranding and then assaulted and murdered her.25 Under the established rule, however, the criminal acts constitute an efficient intervening cause.26 The manufacturers had no special relationship with either Amy or Cook that would impose a duty to anticipate or guard against third-party criminal conduct.27 General knowledge that crime can occur at breakdown scenes does not extend the duty of product manufacturers to protect users from such acts.28
The petition therefore fails to allege facts establishing the essential element of proximate cause.29
The amended petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Ford and Firestone under negligence or strict liability theories.30
Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where specific acts of negligence are alleged against Ford and Firestone?31
No. The Stahleckers alleged specific negligent acts by Firestone in failing to design, manufacture, test, inspect, warn, and recall the tires.34 They alleged specific negligent acts by Ford in failing to oversee tire design and manufacturing, failing to warn of known dangers, and failing to recall the tires.35 Because the petition sets forth these particular acts of negligence rather than relying solely on the occurrence of the tire failure, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable.36
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to the claims against Ford and Firestone.37
Whether the criminal acts of a third party constitute an efficient intervening cause that defeats proximate cause in the claims against Ford and Firestone?38
An efficient intervening cause is a new independent force intervening between the defendant's negligent act and the plaintiff's injury.39 The criminal act of a third person is a superseding cause unless the defendant realized or should have realized the likelihood that the situation created would invite such conduct.40 A manufacturer owes no duty to anticipate and guard against criminal acts at the scene of a product failure absent a special relationship with the victim or the perpetrator.41
Yes. The petition alleges that the tire failure stranded Amy in a remote area at night and that Cook then abducted, raped, and murdered her.42 Although the tire failure was a but-for cause of the location of the encounter, the criminal acts were not a natural and probable result of the manufacturers' failure to warn.43 Ford and Firestone had no right of control over Cook or over the remote location.44 Their general awareness that crime can occur after vehicle breakdowns does not create the type of specific knowledge or special relationship that would impose a duty to protect against such acts.45
The criminal conduct therefore constitutes an efficient intervening cause that defeats proximate cause under both negligence and strict liability.46
The criminal acts of Cook constitute an efficient intervening cause that defeats proximate cause in the claims against Ford and Firestone.47
Whether the district court erred in sustaining the demurrers filed by Ford and Firestone and in dismissing the action without leave to amend?48
A demurrer is properly sustained when the petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.49 When the only reasonable inference from the pleaded facts is that an efficient intervening cause precludes liability, the court may decide proximate cause as a matter of law and dismiss without leave to amend.50
No. The amended petition alleges facts showing a product defect and resulting stranding but also shows that the criminal acts of Cook were an efficient intervening cause.51 Because the only reasonable inference is that those acts preclude a finding of proximate cause, the district court correctly sustained the demurrers and dismissed the action against Ford and Firestone without further leave to amend.52
The district court did not err in sustaining the demurrers and dismissing the action without leave to amend.53