Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
In the realm of tort law, establishing causation is fundamental to securing redress for damages. A plaintiff must demonstrate a legally recognized causal link between the defendant’s act and the harm suffered. However, determining this link isn’t always straightforward, particularly when multiple events contribute to the damage. The principle of *novus actus interveniens* (new intervening act) becomes particularly relevant when events causing damage are not simultaneous but successive, creating a challenge in ascertaining which act(s) are the proximate cause of the harm. This complexity necessitates a careful examination of legal principles and judicial precedents to determine liability.
Understanding Causation in Tort Law
Causation, in tort law, refers to the link between the defendant’s wrongful act (negligence, trespass, etc.) and the plaintiff’s injury or damage. It’s not enough to prove the defendant was negligent; the negligence must have *caused* the harm. Two key elements are generally considered: factual causation and legal causation.
Factual Causation: The ‘But For’ Test
The primary test for factual causation is the ‘but for’ test, established in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 1 QB 428. This test asks: ‘But for’ the defendant’s negligence, would the harm have occurred? If the answer is no, then factual causation is established. However, this test has limitations, especially in cases involving multiple potential causes.
Legal Causation: Proximate Cause & Remoteness
Even if factual causation is established, legal causation must also be proven. This involves determining whether the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the harm, and whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable. The concept of remoteness of damage also comes into play, limiting liability for consequences that are too far removed from the original negligent act. Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] AC 388 clarified that foreseeability of the *type* of damage, not the precise extent, is the key factor.
The Problem of Successive Causation
Ascertaining causation becomes particularly problematic when the events causing damage are not simultaneous but successive. This arises when a defendant’s initial negligence sets in motion a chain of events, and a subsequent, independent act (either by the defendant, a third party, or even the plaintiff) contributes to the ultimate harm. The question then becomes: at what point does the chain of causation break?
Intervening Acts: Novus Actus Interveniens
The doctrine of *novus actus interveniens* addresses this issue. It states that an intervening act will break the chain of causation if it is independent of the defendant’s negligence and sufficiently potent to become the primary cause of the harm. Intervening acts can be classified as:
- Human Acts: Acts of third parties or the plaintiff themselves.
- Natural Events: Unforeseeable natural occurrences (e.g., an earthquake).
Case Examples Illustrating Successive Causation
- Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] AC 627: A worker splashed with molten metal suffered burns. He later developed cancer due to the burns. The employer was held liable, even though the cancer was not a foreseeable consequence of the initial negligence. The initial burn was a direct cause, and the cancer developed as a result.
- McKew v Holland [1969] 1 WLR 1608: A woman suffered a fractured skull due to a negligent collision. While receiving treatment, a negligent medical procedure caused further injury. The court held the original tortfeasor liable for the full extent of the injuries, as the subsequent negligence was a foreseeable consequence of the initial injury requiring medical treatment.
- Robinson v Post Office [1974] AC 767: A man was injured while attempting to prevent a thief from escaping a post office. The Post Office was held liable because the risk of a struggle and subsequent injury was a foreseeable consequence of their negligent security arrangements.
- The Oropesa [1987] 2 WLR 819: A ship negligently damaged an oil pipeline. Attempts to repair the pipeline caused an explosion. The House of Lords held that the shipowner was liable for the explosion, as the repair attempts were a foreseeable consequence of the initial damage.
Distinguishing Foreseeable and Unforeseeable Intervening Acts
The key distinction lies in foreseeability. If the intervening act was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence, the chain of causation remains intact. However, if the intervening act was entirely unforeseeable and independent, it will likely break the chain, relieving the defendant of liability for the subsequent harm. The courts adopt a pragmatic approach, considering all the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion
Ascertaining causation in cases involving successive events is a complex undertaking, demanding a careful application of legal principles and a nuanced understanding of the factual matrix. The ‘but for’ test establishes factual causation, while legal causation requires demonstrating proximate cause and reasonable foreseeability. The doctrine of *novus actus interveniens* provides a framework for analyzing intervening acts, but the ultimate determination hinges on whether the intervening act was foreseeable and sufficiently potent to break the chain of causation. Judicial precedents, like those discussed above, highlight the contextual nature of this analysis and the importance of a balanced approach to ensure just outcomes.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.