4.4 Novus actus interveniens
4.4.4 An intervening act of a third party
In order to succeed with a plea of novus actus interveniens in these circumstances the defendant must show that the act of the third party was also negligent and was of such magnitude that it did in fact break the chain of causation. Furthermore, the defendant must not be under any duty to guard against the act of the third party.
CASE EXAMPLE
Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 All ER 851
The defendant, through his negligent driving, crashed and blocked a tunnel. The police officer in charge at the scene then negligently sent a police officer against the flow of traffic to block off the tunnel at the other end. There was a second accident and the police officer was injured as a result. The court held that the defendant was not liable for the injuries sustained by this policeman. They were the fault of the other police officer and his action amounted to a novus actus interveniens.
Stephenson LJ identified:
JUDGMENT
‘the original tortfeasor, whose negligence created the danger which invites rescuers, will be responsible for injury and damage which are the natural and probable results of the wrongful act’
but in accepting that the chain of causation had been broken he also commented:
JUDGMENT
‘Negligent conduct is more likely to break the chain of causation than conduct which is not.’
Furthermore, for the act of the third party to break the chain of causation, the con- sequences of the third party’s act must be foreseeable.
CASE EXAMPLE
Lamb v Camden London Borough Council [1981] QB 625
Here the defendant council negligently broke a water main as a result of which the claimants’
house suffered water damage and the claimants had to move out. While the claimants were out of the house squatters moved in and caused much more damage. The council was held not liable for the further damage. The actions of the squatters were a novus actus interveni- ens. It was not foreseeable.
As already mentioned above, for the chain of causation to be broken, the defendant must not have any duty to guard against the third party’s act.
100
NEGLIGENCE: CAUSATION
CASE EXAMPLE
Ward v Cannock Chase District Council [1986] 3 All ER 537
Here the defendant council negligently allowed a house to fall into general disrepair. The house adjoined the claimants’ house. When the claimants were forced to move out of their house while the repairs to the adjoining house were carried out vandals and thieves who broke in damaged it. The council had failed to make proper repairs and act quickly enough in repair- ing the house next door. The court held that this meant that acts of vandalism were almost inevitable. There was no novus actus interveniens and the council was held liable.
Nevertheless, it is also possible that in such circumstances both the defendant and the third party have in fact contributed to the damage caused. In such circumstances both parties will be held individually liable accordingly.
CASE EXAMPLE
Rouse v Squires [1973] QB 889
The defendant drove negligently, causing his lorry to jackknife on a motorway, as a result of which an accident occurred in which many vehicles were involved, including the claimant.
Another driver because he was driving much too fast then negligently collided with some of the stationary vehicles from the first incident, killing the claimant. Despite the obvious respons- ibility of the later driver, the chain of causation was held not to be broken. The damage in the second incident was held to be a foreseeable consequence of the first and the first driver was held to be 25 per cent responsible for the death of the claimant. The remaining liability was with the driver of the vehicle involved in the second collision. The court identified that the negligence of the lorry driver was an operative cause of the claimant’s death and that the chain of causation could not be broken by the effect of a later driver driving too fast or not keeping a proper lookout for hazards ahead. It did accept that someone deliberately or reck- lessly driving into the crashed vehicles could break the causal chain.
So the effects of a successful plea of novus actus interveniens in simple terms would appear to be as follows:
J Where it is the claimant’s own act that intervenes – the defendant is relieved of liab- ility and the claimant has no possible remedy for the damage suffered.
J Where there is an intervening act of nature – it is likely that the claimant will have no defendant to sue and no remedy.
J Where a third party is responsible for the intervening act – the claimant will have no action against the original defendant – whether or not the claimant still has a possible action and a remedy will depend on whether the third party is also negligent.
ACTIVITY
Self- assessment questions
1. What exactly does the phrase novus actus interveniens mean?
2. What are the necessary requirements for a successful claim of novus actus interveniens by a defendant?
3. What is the difference between a plea of novus actus interveniens and one of contributory negligence?
101
4.4 NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS
4. What are the three types of novus actus?
5. Which is the least likely to be successful?
6. Which is the most likely to still give the claimant a remedy?
7. What happens to the claimant’s claim when the defence proves successful?
KEY FACTS
Novus actus interveniens Case
ACTIVITY
Quick quiz
In the following situations consider which type of novus actus interveniens is involved and whether or not the defendant in the case is likely to be held liable.
1. During a very severe storm Atmar is driving well over the speed limit, loses control of his car and crashes into Jacquie’s car causing some damage to the bumper and left side wing.
The storm causes a large tree to uproot. This then falls on to Jacquie’s car destroying it completely.
2. During a very severe storm Jacquie is driving well over the speed limit, loses control of her car and crashes into Sukhy’s car causing the radiator to burst and leak water. Sukhy then drives home, a distance of 30 miles. The radiator leaks on the way and boils dry causing the engine to seize. The engine is completely destroyed as a result.
3. During a very severe storm Sukhy is driving well over the speed limit, loses control of his car and crashes into Chris’s car which stalls and will not start. In fact only minimal damage was done to the front bumper of Chris’s car. Chris pushes his car safely into the side of the road, calls the AA and waits for them to attend to restart his car. Norman, who is driving well above the speed limit, loses control of his car, skids violently across the road and crashes into Chris’s car. Chris’s car is a write off and Chris is killed in the collision.
A defendant will not be liable where there is a novus actus interveniens (a new act intervening).
This is because the 'chain of causation' is broken by the intervening act.
An intervening act could be of three types:
• an intervening act of the claimant
• an intervening act of nature
• an intervening act of a third party.
But there will be no break in the chain of causation where the intervening event is reasonable and foreseeable.
Or where the defendant was under a duty to prevent the act that is alleged to break the chain of causation.
McKew v Holland & Hannen
& Cubitts [1969]
Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government [1952]
Knightley v lohns [1982]
Lord v Pacific Steam Navigation Co Ltd (The Oropesa) [1943]
Reeves v Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police [1999]
102
NEGLIGENCE: CAUSATION