Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

CAUSATION IN LAW (Novus Actus Interveniens (Acts of third parties…

- - - - McKew v Holland
        Plt suffered leg injury due to def’s negligence
        After incident, he fell on a steep stair with no handrail
        HL: P exposing himself to danger posed by staircase made his own conduct sole cause of injury
        However, if P was weakened by initial injury and acts with ordinary prudence, there is no novus actus
      - Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets
        Def’s conduct caused plt to wear a neck collar and prevented plt from using her bifocals with usual skill and plt fell
        Held: def responsible for additional injuries within risk created by def
    - - The Oropesa: Collision occurred at sea, 9 crewmen died when lifeboat capsized. CA held: the action taken by the captain was the natural consequences of the emergency created by negligence of def. Death was direct consequence of negligent act.
      - Sayers v Harlow DC
        P acted reasonably in trying to get out of the cubicle - natural and probable consequence of the D's negligence.
    - - Meah v McCreamer
        Since “but for” the injuries received, P would not have committed those crimes, P should be compensated for being imprisoned
        Clunis v Camden criticize: public policy not argued, correctly decided? Too remote a loss?
      - Pigney v Pointers Transport Services
        Deceased sustained head injuries during employment with defs, hanged himself.
        Held: deceased would not have committed suicide if no depression induced by the accident; the cause of death was the injury
      - Corr v IBC Vehicles
        HL: Depression foreseeable consequence of D’s negligence and suicide not uncommon consequence of severe depression. No break chain of causation between D’s negligence and consequences of suicide
        Not insane but not fully responsible for own actions
        Just need: tortfeasor ‘who reasonably foresees the occurrence of some damage need not foresee the precise form which the damage may take.’
      - Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
        Duty to prisoner to take care to prevent suicide, not novus actus interveniens. Doctor instructed that he was a suicide risk, and that he should be frequently observed.
  - - - Stansbie v Troman
        Decorator left door unlocked, some things stolen.
        Contractual relationship between decorator and the householder imposed duty on decorator to take reasonable care with regard to the state of the premises.
      - Lamb v Camden
        Council's contractors replacing sewer pipe outside plt's house broke water main causing house to subside. House unoccupied, squatters moved in and caused damage.
        Held: damage was too remote and not recoverable. Question of policy.
      - Ward v Cannock Vandals broke into property and removed parts of building. Thieves broke in and stole chattels. Reasonably foreseeable? Ans: damage not too remote. But theft of P's chattels not foreseeable.
    - - Rouse v Squires
        Def 1's negligence created a danger to road-users. Def 2 was negligent in hitting man, but insufficient to break chain of causation.
    - - Knightley v Johns
        Sequence of events natural and probable consequence of def's negligence and foreseeable result? Senseless, too many non-common sense errors, broke causal chain.
      - Wright v Lodge
        3rd party drove recklessly, so sole cause of other drivers' death / injury was the reckless driving, not def's. Broke causal chain.
    - - Meah v McCreamer: Plt could not recover amounts awarded to 2 of his victims. Contrary to public policy for him to be indemnified for the consequences of his crimes.