Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Novus Actus Interveniens Notes

Law Notes > Tort Law Notes

This is an extract of our Novus Actus Interveniens document, which we sell as part of our Tort Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

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 o 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 o 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 o 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 o Clearly wanton acts will break the chain of causation and reasonable ones will not
? But there are plenty of acts inbetween o 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 o 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, o so many errors and departures from common sense
? made the ordinary course of events become extraordinary o Rescuers/Medics

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Notes.

More Tort Law Samples