McKew vs Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd.
Citation : [1969] 3 All ER 1621
Jurisdiction : Scotland
Appellant : McKew (Defendant in the court of first instance)
Respondent : Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. (Plaintiff in the court of first instance)
Facts :
The case involves two incidents affecting the appellant’s physical condition and resulting injuries. On February 14, 1963, the appellant experienced a minor industrial accident during his employment under the respondent, resulting in back and hip strains. Although these injuries were not serious, they left him with a lingering weakness in his left leg, causing episodes of numbness and loss of control when his left leg suddenly “went away from” him. The injury was not severe in nature. He was recovering day by day.
A few weeks later, on March 7, 1963, while inspecting a tenancy flat with his family, the appellant attempted to navigate a steep staircase without a handrail while carrying his daughter without taking any help from his wife or brother-in-law. As he stepped down, his left leg gave way, causing him to lose his balance. In an effort to protect his daughter, he threw her back and attempted to jump, resulting in a fall that led to significant injuries, including a fractured right ankle and left os calcis. These injuries resulted in a permanent disability.
The appellant claimed that the second accident was a consequence of the first accident which was caused due to the respondent’s negligence, and thus, the respondent was liable to pay damages for the second accident as well.
Issues :
1. Was the second accident a result of the appellant doing something unreasonable?
2. Was the second accident a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the first accident?
3. Was the respondent liable for the second accident?
Decision :
It was held that the appellant’s actions were not reasonable under the given circumstances. The appellant had prior knowledge and experience of his left leg suddenly giving way. Yet, he was not cautious in his descent. The Court found the link between the two accidents to be too remote. Lord Reid stated, “The chain of causation has been broken and what follows must be regarded as caused by his own conduct and not by the defender’s fault or the disability caused by it.” The principle of “novus actus interveniens” was applied to conclude that the second accident was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the first accident. The respondent was not held liable for the second accident and the appeal was dismissed.
Relevant Principle :
Novus actus interveniens : “Novus actus interveniens” is a Latin maxim that means “a new act intervenes”. It is a legal maxim that refers to an event that breaks the causal link between an initial wrongful act and its consequences.
In tort law, a defendant can use “novus actus interveniens” as a defence to argue that they shouldn’t be held responsible for subsequent events. This is because the intervening act breaks the chain of causation and the subsequent injury.
Intervention may happen in three ways –
1. Intervention by an act of a third party,
2. Intervention by an act of the claimant,
3. Intervention by an act of God (a natural calamity).
Author :
1. Shanzida Yasmin Liza
2. S.M. Monzur Morshed
Note: The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
