Novus Actus Interveniens

Novus Actus Interveniens in United Kingdom

A break in the chain of causation arises where there is a new intervening act or ‘novus actus interveniens’.

Novus actus interveniens is a term that is used in the context of causation. It means ‘a new intervening act’. The word ‘new’ is used in the sense that it was not the accused’s act – so the original perpetrator may not be responsible.

A chain of causation is sometimes referred to when the defendant triggers a series of events involving others who may also contribute to the harm or injury of the victim. The question then arises whether the original perpetrator should be responsible for the eventual outcome.

A break in the chain of causation means that when this occurs the courts interpret this to mean that the accused’s conduct was not the cause of the harm or injury. This is unusual but when it does occur it will result in the accused being acquitted. A break in the chain of causation arises where there is a new intervening act or ‘novus actus interveniens’.

In these circumstances it may not be appropriate to find the defendant responsible for the eventual outcome as others have played an important part in bringing this about. The law may still want to blame the accused for the way in which he or she did act but the law will also want to hold responsible the others, for the part they played, if they were the main contributor to the outcome.

There are two cases which probably best illustrate the principles of causation. These are the cases of R v Jordan (1956) and R v Smith (1959):

  • In R v Jordan (1956) the defendant stabbed the victim who was admitted to hospital where he died 8 days later. In hospital the victim had been given anti-biotics to which he was allergic and he had also been given large amounts of intraveneous liquid. At the time of his death the stab wounds were starting to heal. (1)
  • In R v Smith the defendant had been involved in a fight with another soldier at their army barracks. During the fight the defendant stabbed the other soldier twice with his bayonet, medics were called and took the injured man to the medical station. On the way there the man was dropped two times and on arrival at the medical centre he did not receive the appropriate treatment and the medical officer did not diagnose the seriousness of his injuries and that his lung had been punctured in the attack. (2)

Rules on causation and remoteness of damage in tort

There are exceptions, such as in the case of strict liability, but tort liability is about establishing whether anyone is at fault or is to blame. The ‘but for’ test, as applied by Lord Denning in Cork v Kirby Maclean Ltd (1952), should be covered.

Leading cases in this issue include: McGhee v National Coal Board (1972); Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988); Cutler v Vauxhall Motors (1970); Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2002); Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982); Carslogie Steamships Co v Royal Norwegian Navy (1952) and others.

The matter of a causal link is related to the chain of causation and any new or intervening act (novus actus interveniens).

The law of remoteness of damage which is illustrated by such cases as Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co (1921); Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961); Bradford v Robinson Rentals (1967); Wagon Mound (No 2) (1967).

“But for” test

The ‘but for’ test is used to help the courts decide on the matter of factual cause. In effect the courts ask themselves the question ‘but for the the conduct of the accused would the harm complained of occurred?’ If the answer is yes then the defendant should properly be considered responsible. In addition to establishing whether the defendant was responsible for the factual cause of death (‘the but for’ rule) it must be shown that the defendant’s act was a significant cause of the resulting harm i.e. the legal cause.

Legal Causation

Factual Causation is based on the rule of the ‘but for’ test and legal causation is where the court has to decide if the defendant’s actions were the main cause of death.

An examination of the principles of causation shows that the principles are about making the defendant responsible for all foreseeable loss that he or she has caused. Leading cases include the following: Cutler v Vauxhall Motors ( 1970); Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (1988); McGhee v National Coal Board (1972);Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2002); Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982); Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Navy (1952) and others.

The fairness of the rules on causation and remoteness to both parties is illustrated in some relevant cases, such as Doughty v Tuner Manufacturing; Tremain v Pike and Jolley v London Borough of Sutton.

Intervening Acts

Resources

Notes

  1. In the Court of Appeal it was stated that the direct and immediate cause of death was pneumonia. Two doctors expressed the opinion that death had not been caused by the stab wound, which was mainly healed at the time of the death, but by the medical treatment the victim received. The court held that the defendant was not liable for the death.
  2. The soldier died and the defendant was convicted of murder. He appealed claiming that if the victim had received the appropriate medical treatment he would have survived. The conviction was upheld as the stab wound was the “operating and substantial cause” of death.

Cases

  • Chappel V Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
  • Dawson, Nolan and Walmsley (1985) 81 Cr App R 150
  • Lanham D. Principles of causation in criminal law’, Chapter 10 in ‘Causation in law and medicine’, Freckleton I. And Mendelson D. (Ed) 2002 Dartmouth Publishing Company, Aldershot England
  • R V Blaue (1975) 1 WLR 1411
  • R V Cato (1976) 62 Cr App R 41
  • R V Daley (1979) 69 Cr App R 39
  • R V Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273
  • R V Halliday (1889) 61 LT 701
  • R V Hayward (1908) 1 Cox CC 692
  • R V HM Coroner for Exeter and East Devon; ex parte Palmer (unreported Court of Appeal 10/12/1997)
  • R V Smith (1959) 2 QB 36

Posted

in

, ,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *