#2340 - Novus Actus Interveniens - Tort Law

How to avoid being held as a “causer” – novus actus interveniens

Introduction

• In certain cases, law will hold that that where on act follows another

  • The “new intervening act” will be held to be regarded as the true cause of the damage

    • Because it has broken the “chain of responsibility” (Stapleton)

How third parties can break the chain of responsibility

• Natural/instinctive intervention

  • When intervention made in “heat of the moment” then does not break chain of responsibility

    • E.g. X throws lit firework into market, A throws it to B, B throws it to C, who is hit and injured

      • Held that X is responsible, acts of A and B do not break the chain of responsibility.

      • X liable for C’s injury.

• Negligent Intervention

  • The intervention has to be so powerful that it obliterates the other’s tort

    • Knightly v Johns [1982]: D was involved in a serious road accident at the end of the tunnel. P, in charge of the scene, forgot to close the entrance of the tunnel, so ordered C to ride down the tunnel, against the traffic, to close it. C obeyed, despite the order and following it being a breach of police standing orders, and C was hit and injured by an incoming car.

      • Stephenson LJ

        • Clearly wanton acts will break the chain of causation and reasonable ones will not

          • But there are plenty of acts inbetween

        • The question to be asked is whether the whole sequence of events is the natural and probable consequence of D’s negligence

          • Subsequent negligent conduct is more likely to break the chain of causation than conduct which is not

            • Positive acts are more likely to be new causes than omissions

        • Common sense has to decide these questions

          • Here, too much happened, too much went wrong, the chapter of accidents, was here too long and varied

            • While some errors might be expected when arriving at an accident scene,

              • so many errors and departures from common sense

                • made the ordinary course of events become extraordinary

  • Rescuers/Medics

    • The Oropesa – Captain of Ship A, D, which had been badly damaged by the negligence of Ship B, ordered an evacuation. He ordered some of the crew into one lifeboat which was successfully rescued. He then ordered the rest of the crew into another one which capsized and killed 9 people.

      • HoL

        • While D might have made an error of judgement, he did not break chain of causation b/c in very perilous plight.

    • Webb v Barclays’ Bank PLC – Doctor gave negligent medical care to person injured by another’s negligence.

      • Held

        • Intervention of medics does not always break chain of causation

          • But here there was gross negligence in the intervention, sufficient to break chain.

• Intentional Interventions

  • Deliberate act of wrongdoing will normally mean D is absolved and liability transferred to X

  • But the particular relationship between D and X important when considering novus actus interveniens

    • Home Office v Dorset Yaught Co

      • Acts of Borstal boys “very foreseeable”

      • Thus negligence acts of the officers meant Home Office was still liable

        • Even though it was the boys, not the officers, who had caused the damage.

    • Stansbie v Troman

      • D was decorator who agreed with C to look after the house

      • D left door off the latch, thief broke in and stole stuff

        • Held that D was liable owing to relationship of trust between C and D

    • Lamb v Camden LBC [1981]:

      • Lord Denning:

        • D should not be liable for damage that is reasonably foreseeable

          • If it is “too remote” from the initial negligent act (i.e. wrongful third party intervention from the initial negligent act and damage D caused)

          • Which is decided by reasons of policy

            • Then D is only liable for the damage from his negligent act that he causes AND is reasonably foreseeable.

• Intervention by the Claimant

  • Autonomous decision by C

    • Corr v IBC Vehicles

      • Lord Bingham

        • The rationale of the principle that a novus actus broke the chain of causation is fairness

          • It is not fair for the tortfeasor to be held responsible for some supervening cause for which they are not responsible

        • This is not the less so where the independent, supervening cause is a voluntary, informed decision

          • taken by the victim as an adult of sound mind making and giving effect to a personal decision about his own future

        • Here, the suicide was caused by the depression, itself caused by the negligence of D, so cannot be such an act.

    • Wiseland v Cyril Carpets: As a result of D’s negligence, C was forced to wear a special collar which limited her use of bifocal glasses. She was nervous and worried after leaving hospital, and when at an office, asked her son to take her home. Despite her son’s help, she fell down some stairs and injured her ankle

      • Eveleigh J

        • D ought to be responsible for the extra damage – C was put in the position of being more unsteady owing to their negligence.

    • Sayers v Harlow – C was injured trying to climb over the cubicle of a toilet when she had been locked in by D.

      • Held CoA

        • While method of escape held considerable risk, chain of causation not broken as forced into unreasonable act by D’s negligence

          • However, damages reduced for contributory negligence.

  • Act of the appellant must be unreasonable

    • M’Kew v Holland Ltd – M had been injured at work, and D admitted liability for this. However, M went to visit a flat up some steep stairs with no handrail, knowing his leg could give way. While holding his child’s hand as he descended, his leg gave way and he fell down the stairs, doing additional damage to his ankle. Were D still responsible?

      • Lord Reid...