Causation may be broken by a supervening act. To what degree does a supervening act have to be to break the chain of causation?

Authors Avatar

6. Causation & remoteness II

Breaking the link

Causation may be broken by a supervening act.  To what degree does a supervening act have to be to break the chain of causation?

The best example of this is:

Scott v Shepherd [1733] 3 Wm Bl 892

The Defendant threw a lit squib into a market place.  To avoid injury the stallholders threw the squib from stall to stall until eventually it exploded, blinding the Plaintiff.  The Defendant was found to be liable, and the stallholders did not break the chain of causation.

Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 KB 48.

A decorator left a house to go to the shops.  During this time, having left the front door ajar, a thief walked in a burgled the house.  He claimed that he could not be held liable for the act of thieves.  The court disagreed.  He was found liable for it, as the chain of causation had not been broken.  However, if the thief had been caught he would not have been able to claim that it was the decorators’ fault he burgled the place by leaving the door open.

Causation is usually a case of common sense.  However, it is a matter of law in complex situations.  Each situation must be assessed individually; the players, the situation, the acts done, the omissions all contribute to an incident.  However, common sense must be used when assessing it.

Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349

The 1st Defendant negligently caused a car accident at the opening of a tunnel.  The 2nd Defendant was a copper in charge at the scene.  He’s negligently forgotten to close the tunnel, and so sent the Plaintiff to go and close it.  Whilst driving down the tunnel, he was hit by another car. He claimed that the 1st Defendant was more to blame.  It was said that the chain of causation had been broken by a negligent act (i.e. that of the 2nd Defendant).  For chain of causation to be broken there must be a high foreseeability of the intervening act.  If it is not highly foreseeable, then little chance of breaking the chain.  If it is foreseeable, it is likely, if it is negligent act then more possible, and if it is reckless even more possible, and if it is a deliberate act done a 3rd party not under the control of the Defendant then it is almost inevitable.

Join now!

Novus Actus Interveniens by third parties.

“In general, even though A is in fault, he is not liable to B for injuries caused by C, who acts independently and with deliberate malice.  A may have caused the opportunity for C to act, C is acting independently and is a new cause.”

There are, however, rare occasions where A may have an exceptional duty of care to B to prevent injury by C.  This rarely happens.  Even if A creates an occasion for C to create injury, it is independent and therefore unrelated to A.  B ...

This is a preview of the whole essay