NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

Submitted to:

Dr. Sushila

Prof. Prem Chand

Submitted by:

Pragya Dwivedi

Roll no. 53

National Law University

Delhi (India)

2015

1
 Declaration

I hereby declare that the work reported in this project report entitled “Novus Actus
Interveniens”, submitted at National Law University, Delhi, is an outcome of my work carried
out under the supervision of Prof. Prem Chand. I have duly acknowledged all the sources from
which the ideas and extracts have been taken. To the best of my understanding, the project is free
from any plagiarism issue.

Pragya Dwivedi

National Law University, Delhi

Date: 5th November, 2015

2
 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

 AC – Appeal Cases (England)

 All ER – All England Law Reports
 CLR – Commonwealth Law Reports
 HL – House Of Lords
 QB – Queen’s Bench
 NSWLR – New South Wales Law Reports
 UKHL – United Kingdom House of Lords

3
 LIST OF CASES

S.No NAME OF THE CASE Pg. No.

.
1. Baker v. Willoughby (1970) AC 467 (HL) 15
2. Carslogie Steamship Co. Ltd. V. Royal Norwegian 16
Government (1952) A.C. 292
3. Chapman v. Hearse (1962) 106 CLR 112 11
4. City of Lincoln, (1889) 15 PD 15 (CA) 10
5. Greenland v. Chaplin (1850) 5 Ex 243 11
6. Havenaar v. Havenaar (1982) 1 NSWLR 626 11
7. Haynes v. Harwood (1935) 1 KB 146 15
8. Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970) UKHL 2 14
9. Lord v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. the Oropesa 8, 14
(1943) 1 All ER 211 (CA)
10. McKew v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. 13
(1969) 3 All ER 1621 HL
11. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Morts Dock and 12
Engineering Co. Ltd., (1961) AC 388
12. Re Polemis and Furniss, Withy& Co. Ltd. (1921) 3 KB 11, 12
560
13. Vicars v. Wilcocks, 8 East 1(KB 1806) 10
14. Ward v. Cannock Chase DC (1985) 3 All ER 14

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE Page
number
DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE I

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS II

LIST OF CASES III

SYNOPSIS IV

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 8

CHAPTER 2: 10
EVOLUTION OF “NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS”

CHAPTER 3: 11
LEGAL TESTS

CHAPTER 4: INTERVENING ACTS 13

4.1 ACT OF CLAIMANTS
4.2 ACT OF THIRD PARTY
4.3 ACT OF GOD
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 17

Bibliography 18

5
 Synopsis:

NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

INTRODUCTION

Before understanding about the maxim ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’, let us first try to understand
briefly about ‘causation’ and ‘breaking the chain of causation’. When a suit is filed under Tort
law, the plaintiff has to prove that the loss suffered by him was due to the wrongful act of the
defendant. But many a times, it becomes difficult to determine the liability of the defendant
when there is a series of events and existence of more than one possible cause leading to the
damage. In such circumstances, we cannot hold defendant liable as there may be several other
events “breaking the chain of causation.” There has to be something unwarrantable or
unreasonable to break the chain of causation. So a reasonable act done as a result of wrongful act
of defendant which further aggravates the damage does not amount to breaking of the chain of
causation.

Therefore, the maxim ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’, meaning’ a new intervening act’, is a term
used in context of ‘causation’. Generally the defendant’s breach of duty is a cause of the
claimant’s damage; however, in some cases other intervening and unforeseeable act can be
regarded as the ultimate cause of damage for which the defendant will not be held liable.

The study will focus at whether the maxim ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’ serves as a good defence
under law of torts and how the chain of causation breaks? There can be three ways through
which this chain breaks. They are ‘Act of God’, ‘Act of 3rd Party’ and ‘Act of the Claimant’.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The following reference books and online journals have been referred to while preparing this
report:

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The law of Torts.

 P.S.A. Pillai, Law of Tort.

6
  Winfield & Jolowicz, Law of Torts.
 Ramaswamy Iyer’s, The Law of Torts.
 Legal journals from JSTOR and Manupatra.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The study aims to achieve the following objectives:

 To explore more about the legal maxim ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’ with the help of
systematic study of relevant cases.
 To find out in which areas ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’ serves as a good defence.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Whether an intervening act by the 3rd Party is said to be negligent in order to constitute
the Novus Actus Interveniens?
2. Whether the claimant’s own action breaks the chain of causation and whether the
defendant can avoid claims of damages in such cases?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In accordance with the objectives and scope of the study, the doctrinal methodology of research
has been adopted. For this purpose, various textbooks, Legal Dictionaries online journals, articles
and Case laws pertaining to the topic have been studied to gather the relevant information.

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

The present study intended to focus upon how Novus Actus Interveniens, as a device for
limitation of liability, obliterates the wrongdoing of the defendant and whether the defendant will
be liable for their breach of duty if the intervening act is foreseeable.

7
 NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Before understanding about the maxim ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’, let us first try to understand
briefly about ‘causation’ and ‘breaking the chain of causation’. When a suit is filed under Tort
law, the plaintiff has to prove that the loss suffered by him was due to the wrongful act of the
defendant. To prove the causal link between the negligent act of the defendant and loss suffered
by the plaintiff is not a herculean task. For instance, in a case where an accident is caused
because of the negligent driving of A and as a result of which another person B got hurt. In this
case, it will be easier to determine the liability of A, whose negligent driving resulted in B’s
injury. This can also be proved easily by applying the ‘but-for test’ which helps us to determine
that the negligent driving of A is an important necessity of B’s loss.

However, many a time, it becomes difficult to determine the liability of the defendant when there
is a series of events and existence of more than one possible cause leading to the damage. In such
circumstances, proof of causal connection becomes difficult. For example, how the causation is
decided when a vessel collides with another vessel due to negligence and sinks while on the way
to a port for repairs during an extraordinary storm? We cannot hold defendant liable at once as
there may be several other events “breaking the chain of causation.” The defendant may claim
that s/he should not be held liable for the intervening act between his negligence and claimant’s
loss. Such a chain-breaking, intervening act is known as ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’ or
‘superseding cause’.

There has to be “something ultroneous”, “unwarrantable” or a new cause which intervenes the
series of events for the chain of causation to break.1

Therefore, the maxim ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’, meaning’ a new intervening act’, is a term
used in context of ‘causation’. Generally the main cause for the plaintiff’s claim is basically the

1
Lord v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. The Oropesa (1943) 1 All ER 211 (CA); (PER LORD WRIGHT).

8
breach of duty by the defendant; however, there are some cases where other intervening and
unforeseeable act can be regarded as the ultimate cause of damage for which the defendant will
not be held liable. In other words, if the new and independent act be an act of volition not
automatic, reflex or without consciousness of what the actor was doing, the causation chain
breaks and the original wrongdoer is relieved from liability.2

Concisely, ‘Novus Actus Interveniens’ is nothing but an intervening event which breaks the
chain of causation that exists between the negligent act of the defendant and the injury suffered
by the plaintiff, thereby relieves the defendant from the liability.3

This paper attempts to analyze the ways in which the chain of the causation can be broken. As
we shall see that the intervening act may take three forms:

(a) Act of claimant

(b) Act of third party

(c) Act of God

Each of these forms will be discussed with the help of relevant cases. We will also try to find out
whether claimant’s own actions break the chain of causation? If yes, then can the defendant
avoid the claims of damages in such cases? And also, whether the third party’s intervening act
is said to be negligent so as to constitute “Novus Actus Interveniens”?

2
P.S.A. PILLAI, LAW OF TORT 148 (9th ed. 2011).
3
NYGH & BUTT, BUTTERWORTHS AUSTRALIAN LEGAL DICTIONARY 803.

9
 CHAPTER 2

EVOLUTION OF “NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS”

At the commencement of nineteenth century, the intervening act of human did not generally
amount to Novus actus Interveniens. At this point of time, the doctrine of ‘Last human wrong-
doer’ emerged. This rule draws its origin from ‘Vicars v. Wilcocks’ 4 case in which it was held
that, if there occurs an intervening act of third party, after the negligent act committed by the
defendant, then he is relieved from the liability and the last human wrongdoer will be held
responsible for the loss caused to the plaintiff. The facts of this case were that the defendant told
the third person that the plaintiff had done some damage in defendant’s ropeyard and as a result
of which the plaintiff was dismissed from job by his employer. The court held that the damages
alleged were too remote. In the words of Lord Ellenborough, C.J., “The special damage must be
legal and natural consequence of the words spoken”

This case, therefore, marked the beginning of a judicially developed doctrine of ‘Novus actus
Interveniens’.5 By the late nineteenth century, this doctrine had entered into the sphere of
maritime collisions also. In the City of Lincoln 6, a collision between a steamer and a barge took
place due to the sole negligence of steamer. As a result the barge was damaged and some
important navigational equipments were lost. The captain of the barge headed to the port of
safety. However, the barge was grounded and later abandoned without any negligence of the
captain or the crew. The court of appeal held that the captain’s action was reasonable and did not
break the chain of causation. The owners of the steamer were held responsible for the loss of
barge.7

In this way the maxim Novus Actus Interveniens evolved through numerous cases over the
years.

4
Vicars v. Wilcocks, (1806) 8 East 1 KB.
5
DOUGLAS HODGSON, THE LAW OF INTERVENING CAUSATION 15 (2008).
6
City of Lincoln (1889) 15 PD 15 (CA).
7
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF TORTS 188 (26th ed, 2013).

10
 CHAPTER 3

LEGAL TESTS

There are some important legal tests for intervening causation: Reasonable foreseeability; test of
directness, voluntary human action; probability; and scope of risk.  With regard to this study,
first consider the ‘Reasonable Foreseeability test’ which has helped the judges since earlier
times in determining whether the causal link between the defendant’s negligent act and
plaintiff’s loss is broken by any intervening act or not. In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes,
‘if the intervening acts are of such a nature that no foresight could have been expected to look
out for them, the defendant is not to blame for having failed to do so’ 8. To put in simple words,
“the more foreseeable the intervening act, the more it is unlikely for the courts to consider it as
breaking the chain of causation”.9

In Greenland v Chaplin, 185010, foreseeability test for determining remoteness was advocated by
Pollock CB. In Chapman v Hearse11, the high court of Australia held that the plaintiff does not
necessarily need to prove that the defendant should have reasonably foreseen ‘the precise
sequence of events’ rather it is enough to ask whether the consequence of same nature as that
which followed was reasonably foreseeable or not.

However, over the years there were some issues with this test as one judge observed, “The courts
have developed a capacity to foresee even quite bizarre consequences of accidents”. 12Lord Reid
on reasonably foreseeable risk said that “it is any real risk which would occur to the reasonable
person’s mind and which he/she would not brush aside as far-fetched”.13

However, in the Re Polemis and Furniss, Withy & Co. Ltd., 14 the Court of Appeal said that the
defendant would be held liable for any direct outcomes from the negligent act, even if they were
not foreseeable. We see a number of cases after 1850 in which the court upheld the Directness
Rule over the foreseeability test.

8
O.W. HOLMES, COMMON LAW 92 (1881).
9
Supra note 5.
10
Greenland v Chaplin (1850) 5 Ex 243.
11
Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112.
12
Havenaar v Havenaar (1982), 1 NSWLR 626, 627 per Hutley J.A.
13
DOUGLAS HODGSON, THE LAW OF INTERVENING CAUSATION 50 (2008).
14
Re Polemis and Furniss, Withy & Co. Ltd. (1921) 3 KB 560.

11
Later in the landmark Wagon Mound (No.1)15 case, the court overruled its judgement given in
Re Polemis. The facts of the case were that the defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked
furnace oil at a Wharf. As a result, some scrap of cotton became embroiled in the oil which got
ignited from the sparks occurred from the welding work. The fire then spread causing damage of
some boats. The court held that even if the crew was negligent and breached their duty of care,
the huge damage caused by fire was not really foreseeable by a reasonable person.

Till this time, the test of Directness based on the leading Re Polemis case was used to determine
the liability. With Wagon Mound case, The Council gave a landmark judgement which was
primarily based on foreseeability test. Moreover, Justice Viscount Simonds, while delivering the
judgement, even mentioned that how “Re Polemis Rule” motivated the defendants to plead the
Novus Actus Interveniens so as to relieve themselves from the liability.16

Therefore, a number of legal tests are applied by the Judges for intervening causation in different
cases. Other than the Directness test, there is the Wagon Mound Rule that is based on reasonable
foreseeability that helps to determine that the defendant cannot be held liable in case where he
has no control over the act of the third party due to the unreasonable foreseeability of the act.

15
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd (1961) AC 388.
16
Supra note 5 at 33.

12
 CHAPTER 4

INTERVENING ACTS

Novus actus Interveniens which breaks the chain of causation and relieves the defendant of any
further liability claim can take three forms. An attempt to study these three forms with the help
of cases is made in this chapter.

4.1 ACT OF CLAIMANT

Sometimes the claimant can be held responsible for his own damage and as such the defendant is
relieved from the liability. If the consequence of the acts of claimant is reasonably foreseeable,
the chain of causation shall be considered as broken. A famous case where the House of Lords
held that the chain of causation was broken was that of McKew v Holland and Hannen & Cubitts
Ltd.17

So therefore the question that whether action of the claimant itself breaks the causation chain
will primarily be dependent upon the reasonability of that action. Since in the case discussed
above, the claimant’s own unreasonable conduct was responsible for the break of chain from
which it follows that the defendant was not liable and hence can avoid the damage claims.18

According to the Winfield and Jolowicz, it is necessary that the plaintiff is of sound mind in
order for their act to be independent and voluntary. 19 The case of Reeves v Commissioner of
Police of the Metropolis20 was fought on the basis that the plaintiff ‘Lynch’ was sane at the time
he committed suicide. It was held that since there exists a duty of care on the part of defendant,
therefore it would be worthless at the next step to go on to hold that his voluntary decision to die
broke the chain of causation.21

Concisely, chain of causation will be deemed to be broken by the voluntary act when there is full
capacity. However, it is not so when there is no capacity and the claimant cannot act voluntarily.

17
McKew v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd., (1969) 3 All ER 1621 (HL).
18
Supra note 2 at 151.
19
WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ, TORT 317-318 (17th ed, 2006).
20
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, (2000) 1 AC 360 HL.
21
Supra note 19.

13
4.2 ACT OF THIRD PARTIES

An act of third party can also constitute Novus actus Interveniens if it is ‘the immediate cause of
the plaintiff’s damage’.22 It will relieve the defendant of any liability. This act of the third party
can occur either voluntarily or involuntarily.

In The Oropesa23, there was a collision between two ships namely The Oropesa and The
Manchester Regiment as a result of which latter war severely damaged and its captain boarded a
lifeboat with some crew members to arrange for salvage assistance. The lifeboat capsized and
nine of the crew members died. In a damage claim made by one of the deceased crew members,
the main issue was whether by the act of the claimant in an attempt to go to Oropesa with the
crew in a lifeboat, the chain of causation was broken or not? However, court held that the
captain’s act was a natural outcome under emergency. The chain was not broken and the action
of the master was not itself tortious; he was not guilty of any breach of duty to the deceased, but
this very fact is not decisive per se. Thus, the defendant will be held liable for their breach of
duty where the intervening act by the third party is reasonably foreseeable.

In Lamb v. Camden London Borough, the defendant’s negligent act caused the plaintiff’s house
to be damaged and become unoccupied. However, they were not liable for the further damage
24
done by the depredation of squatters as squatting was foreseeable. But in Ward v Cannock
Chase DC, the independent act of third party did not break the chain of causation. Therefore,
whether or not the chain of causation is broken by any act will depend upon the mental capacity
of the doer.

Now let us try to understand how the negligent act of the third party will constitute the Novus
Actus Interveniens?

In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., it was held that a consequent negligent act should be
something ‘very likely to occur’ for not to be considered as breaking the chain.25

Similarly, in the celebrated case of Haynes v. Harwood, 1935 the defendants were held liable
because of their horse left unattended in the street and caused to bolt by a mischievous boy as a
22
WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ, TORT 311 (17th ed. 2006).
23
(1943) 1 All ER 211 (CA).
24
Lamb & another v London Borough of Camden & another , (1981) QB 625 CA.
25
Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., (1970) UKHL 2.

14
result of which the plaintiff got injured. The court said that it was negligent on part of the
defendants to leave the horse unattended as it is reasonably foreseeable that the children might
interfere.26

The cases above illustrate that a steady and rational approach is taken by the courts regarding the
precedent. That which is reasonably foreseeable as an outcome of the negligence of defendant
does not break the causation chain. In Baker v Willoughby27, the act committed by the gunman
did not constitute Novus Actus Interveniens. The court held the defendant as liable. On the other
hand, in Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd., the decision given in ‘Baker’ was not followed.
There was negligence on part of the employer. As a result of which the claimant lost his earning
capacity by half. After three years, he was diagnosed with spondolylotic myelopathy. According
to court’s judgement this disease constituted Novus actus Interveniens and thus the defendant
was not liable.

Therefore, the defendant is usually relieved of any liability for the injury caused by the
intervening act of the third party. However, again if such an intervention could be reasonably
foreseen by the defendant, he would be held liable.

26
Supra note 5 at 316.
27
Baker v. Willoughby, (1970) AC 467 (HL).

15
4.3 ACT OF GOD

The events that are beyond the human control are termed as an act of God. The intervening acts
of nature do not generally break the causation chain. However, in Carslogie Steamship Co. Ltd v
Royal Norwegian Government28, there was a collision between the ship of the plaintiff and that
of the defendant. As a result, the plaintiff’s ship got damaged to some extent. After primary
repairs for the time being, the plaintiff started heading towards the United States where she
would not have gone if the collision had not occurred. Due to extraordinary weather conditions,
she suffered heavy damage and when she arrived to the United States, the collision damage as
well as extraordinary weather damage was permanently repaired. In the suit for damages, it was
decided that the storm would constitute the Novus Actus Interveniens. Therefore, no liability on
part of the defendant existed for any subsequent loss that occurred due to the high storm and
plaintiff was only entitled to the damages caused by collision. The court said that the storm could
have happened on any voyage and as such it was unforeseeable and separate act.

28
Carslogie Steamship Co. Ltd v. Royal Norwegian Government, (1952) A.C. 292.

16
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

After going through plethora of cases, it is now clear what an intervening force is. It is
essentially an act or an event which comes in between the initial act and the ultimate outcome. If
this intervening force is so powerful in the eyes of court so as to release the defendant from the
liability, it constitutes a “Novus actus Interveniens”.

In this study the researcher has attempted to discuss the various cases and conditions under
which the chain of causation is deemed to be broken and constitute “Novus Actus Interveniens”.
It is quite clear how the maxim of Novus Actus Interveniens evolved through the cases and the
way it has been applied in different cases in different parts of the world successfully.

One of the main aims of this paper was to determine whether there exists a duty of care on the
part of the third party towards the plaintiff in case of loss or damages and also whether the
defendant can be made liable for the intervening acts caused by the third party. Therefore the
answer to this depends on the fact that whether the third party’s act can be reasonably foreseen
by the defendant or not. If it is not, then the defendant cannot be held liable.

The another important conclusion from this study is that sometimes due to his unreasonable
conduct, the claimant’s own action causes the chain of causation to break and hence the
defendant can avoid the damage claims in such cases. Therefore, Novus Actus Interveniens in
those circumstances can serve as a good defence for the defendant.

17
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

i. DOUGLAS HODGSON, THE LAW OF INTERVENING (2008)

ii. O.W. HOLMES, COMMON LAW (1881)
iii. P.S.A. PILLAI, LAW OF TORT (9th ed.2011)
iv. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF TORTS (26th ed. 2013)
v. WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ, TORT (17th ed. 2006)

Legal dictionary:

 NYGH AND BUTT, BUTTERWORTHS AUSTRALIAN LEGAL DICTIONARY

Online sources:

 www.Scconline.com
 www.Manupatra.com

18