Tort law negligence legal causation

What is legal causation concerned with?

Whether there are any grounds upon which the link established in factual causation should be regarded as having been broken I.e. novus actus interveniens

What are the three types of novus actus?

• Acts of God/natural events

• Acts of third parties

• Acts of C

What is an 'act of God'

Some exceptional natural event.

Only count if:

• they could not have been foreseen

• D shouldn't have taken them into account as events that were likely to happen

E.g. struck by lightning, drowning in a flood, the onset of certain disease

Give a case example of an 'act of God' breaking the chain

• Carslogie Steamship v Royal Norwegian Government [1952] AC 292

• Facts: C's vessel was damaged in a collision with D's ship (negligent). The repairs were not immediately necessary and it was taken back to the US for repair. On the way it suffered heavy storm damage. The initial repairs took 10 days to fix and the storm damage 51 days.

• Held: D only liable for damages from the first collision.

When will an act of a third party break the chain?

When it was 'highly unforeseeable' (i.e., very unlikely to happen as a result of D's negligence.

Give a non-medical example of an act of a third party breaking the chain of causation

• Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349

Facts: D caused a road accident. Subsequently, a police inspector negligently handled traffic control and a police officer (C) was seriously injured.

Held: D not liable - police inspector's actions were highly unforeseeable

When will an act of a third party by medical treatment break the chain?

Medical treatment will not break the chain unless it is 'so gross and egregious as to be unforeseeable'

Medical negligence needs to be "palpably wrong" to break the chain (Robinson v Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737)

Give a medical example of an act of a third party not breaking the chain of causation

• Wright v Cambridge Medical Group [2011] EWCA Civ 669

Facts: C (child whom GP practice negligently failed to refer) suffered permanent hip injury. When C was eventually referred the hospital treatment was negligent.

Held: GP liable for full extent of C's loss

Reason: Hospital negligence was not "such an egregious event in terms of the degree of usualness of the negligence…to destroy the causative link between [D's] negligence and [C's] injury"

When will C's act break the chain?

When the act is 'highly unreasonable'

Why is it rare for C's act to break the chain of causation?

C's contribution can be considered at the contributory negligence stage (i.e., D is still liable but C's damages are reduced)

Give an example where C's act broke the chain of causation

• McKew v Holland [1969] 3 All ER 1621

Facts: C suffered a leg injury due to D's negligence resulting in impaired mobility. C later descended a steep staircase without a handrail and fell

Held: Chain broken.

Reason: C acted very unreasonably.

Give an example where C's act did not break the chain of causation

• Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets [1969] 3 All ER 1006

Facts: C wore a neckbrace due to D's negligence which restricted her ability to use her glasses properly. As a result she fell down some stairs and injured her ankle.

Held: D liable.

Reason: C had acted carefully (she had help from her son when descending the stairs).

What is the effect of a novus actus interveniens?

D is only liable for the loss which occurs before the novus actus.