Pg 119,129

The court will ake into the count the statistics. Ussy 50% houna chahiyei.

New intervening cause:

There must be some linkage between defendant and the claimant. There should be a chain. Jo koe new
act break karega.

DEFENDANT CLAIMANT

NEW AND INTERVENING ACT CAUSE( ACT OF CLAIMANT,ACT OF

THIRD PARTY, ACT OF NATURE/GOD)

ACT OF THIRD PARTY:

Criminal conduct and negligent conduct:

Criminal Conduct:

Smith v Littlewoods:

D owned a vacant property. Some wandrers broke into the property and set fire to it. Fire reached the C
property as well. Would the D be liable for this?

The chain breaks here due to the wanders act so there’s a break in the chain .

Claimant defendant ko nahi keh sakta kiyunke wandrers ka act is intervening. The chain of causation
between C and D will break.

Negligent conduct:

Knightly v Johns: (10.9.2)

A third party added a new event. D was a negligent driver and due to his negligent driving he met an
accident and he blocked the busy road tunnel. A police inspector(plaintiff) was sent to the location.
Police officer was driving in the wrong way to close the tunnels entrance. Usi douran he met an accident
and suffered injuries.

Was D responsible for P’s accident?

The court held that D is not responsible of P’sinjury.

Claimant’s own act:

Mckew v holland:

D basically caused leg injury to the claimant. The c wasnt able to walk but he still went to inspect
property. He add to decend the staircase w/o hand rail . he jumped and fell and suffered further
injuries. The C’s act broke the chain and D cant be held liable.

Hol held that plaintiff’s own conduct has been unreasonable so the chain of causation was broken.

Wieland v Cyril:

Due to D’s negligence(he overburdened the C) the C had to wear a surgical collar and the claimant used
a bifocal spectatcles as well. She had to move down from staircase and she fell off and suffered further
injuries. As her neck was fixed, wasnt able to move right or left neither up or down.

D will be held liable bc chain didnt break and C’s act wasnt unreasonable.

Spencer v Wincanton Holdings:

The employer he himself said that i was negligent and i caused the incident. The C had to use the
walking stick due to D’s negligent. The C had to add fuel to his car but he didnt use the walking stick.It
was employees contributory negligent. The judges had to see the unreasonable conduct so here the
chain will not break but the damages will be reduced due to contributory negligence.

When D is liable:

Corrr v ibc:

C had severe injuries due to accident at work place. He has multiple surgeries and ptsd and suffered
suicidal tendicies and committed suicide after 6 years. The defendant was held liable.

REEVES V COMMISIONER OF POLICE OF METROPLOUS:

Defendant(police authority)

Prisoner(claimant)Prisoner ki wife claimed

The C committed suicide in the cell and the custody officer left the lapse of the cell for a bit. He
attempted suicide and ultimately died. The C had the suicidal tedencies.

Kirkham v chief Constable:

Widow claim lae hai

Police (defendant)
Kirkham(alcholic/ was in severe depression)Wife of the C already informed the police about the
condition of her husband.

The defence of volenti fainted and def was liable..