Tort - Novus Actus Interveniens
Novus
Actus Interveniens in tort is an intervening act that causes a break in the
chain of causation and negates the defendant’s liability. A defendant is liable
in tort when his action or inactions (omissions) cause some form of physical
injury, psychiatric illness, or some type of damage to property. The injury,
illness, or damage is normally the direct consequence of the defendant’s action
or inactions (omissions).
Causation
is a chain i.e. an action or an inaction (omission) that leads to a result,
often dire but nonetheless foreseeable and the defendant is often liable unless
there is a break in the chain and a new, often independent act, causes a break
in the chain.
In
the Oropesa (1943) there was a collision at sea between two ships. The Oropesa
collided with another vessel, the Manchester Regiment and the vessel, the
Manchester Regiment sustained serious damage. The captain of the Manchester
Regiment ordered the crew to abandon ship. The captain having transferred 50 of
his crew members to the Oropesa continued to try and safe the ship and ordered
that a lifeboat be lowered.
He
and 17 other crew members got on the lifeboat and headed for the Oropesa in an
attempt to persuade the captain of the Oropesa to tow the ship to the nearest
post. The sea was rough and the lifeboat capsized. 7 of the crew members
drowned.
At
the trial, the defendants (the Oropesa) argued that they were not responsible
for the lives that were lost because the actions of the captain had broken the
chain of causation. The court held that the captain’s actions were both natural
and foreseeable and the seamen’s deaths were the direct consequence of the
collision that was caused by the negligence of the Oropesa and therefore the
defendants were liable. The captain’s actions did not break the chain of
causation.
In
Robinson v The Post Office (1974) the plaintiff was an employee of the post
office and while climbing down a ladder the plaintiff slipped and fell,
sustaining injuries on his shin. The accident was caused by smudges of oil on
the rungs of the ladder. Approximately 8 hours later the plaintiff went to his
doctor for a tetanus jab and the doctor did not follow the prescribed
procedure.
He
was required to inject the plaintiff with a small dose and wait for half an
hour to determine if there were any adverse effects to the injection prior to
administering the full dosage. The doctor waited for about a minute and
administered the full dosage. The injection had an adverse effect on the
plaintiff and the plaintiff suffered brain damage. The plaintiff sued.
The
question before the court was whether the injury was too remote or if it was
the natural consequence of the defendants’ negligence. The plaintiff was
successful. The court held that it was foreseeable that the plaintiff would go
to a doctor for treatment after the first injury, any normal person would, and
therefore the consequent injury that the plaintiff suffered was a direct result
of the defendants’ negligence.
The
fact that the chances were slim that that the plaintiff would suffer from brain
damage did not break the chain of causation and the thin skill rule applied
i.e. you take your victim as you find them.
As
for whether the intervening act of the doctor (novus actus interveniens) caused
a break in the chain of causation, the court held that it did not. It was a
likely consequence of the defendants’ negligence that the plaintiff would seek
some form or type of medical treatment.
In
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1999) the police held in
custody a prisoner who had attempted suicide on several occasions. The prisoner
however did not suffer from a psychological illness and nor did he suffer from
depression or schizophrenia. From all accounts, he was a person of sound mind
but did have suicidal tendencies or leaned towards taking his own life.
The
police left the hatch of his cell door open and the prisoner committed suicide.
An action was brought against the police for negligence and the police
contended that the deceased was a person of sound mind or the argument was that
people of sound mind do not commit suicide and therefore the police were not
required to take additional precautions other that what they normally would.
The
court held that there was a duty of care on the grounds that despite the
prisoner being of sound mind, he displayed suicidal tendencies and had
attempted suicide on several previous occasions. Therefore, given the
opportunity the chances were high that the prisoner might attempt to take his
own life.
It
was further contended that the act of suicide was an intervening act i.e. when
a person of sound mind takes his own life, it is a deliberate act and therefore
the act had caused a break in the chain of causation. The courts decided that
suicide is not an intervening act, it was the very act that the duty sort to
prevent.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment