Novus Actus Interveniens | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

• The connection between facts and liability is crucial in the Law of Torts. Causation requires a chain of events leading to legal action by a plaintiff.
• Novus Actus Interveniens is a legal term meaning a new intervening act that breaks the cause-effect relation of harm to the plaintiff.
• An intervening act can be used by a defendant to reduce liability.
• Two tests determine if an act is intervening: foreseeability and direct damage.
• Foreseeability assesses if the defendant could have anticipated the harm caused by the act.
• Direct damage examines if the act directly resulted from the initial harmful act.
• If both tests are affirmative, the defense based on intervening act fails.

Example:

• If a driver hits a pedestrian, causing injury, but then a lightning strike hits the pedestrian, the lightning strike may be considered a novus actus interveniens.
• However, if the driver's actions were reckless and led to the pedestrian being in a dangerous location where lightning strikes are common, the driver may still be held liable.

Aspects of the Act

• The defense of causation in legal cases can be complex, requiring a clear link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injury.
• Intervening acts are assessed to determine if they break the chain of causation, with a key consideration being whether the new injury is distinct from the original harm.

Precedents Illustrating Intervening Acts

• The Oropesa Case: The death resulting from a boat overturning was deemed a direct consequence of the original harm caused by the defendant.
• Scott V. Shepherd (The Squib Case): Despite intervening actions by others, the harm to the plaintiff was attributed to the defendant's initial act.
• Wright v Lodge & Shepherd: While acknowledging intervening acts, the primary liability was assigned based on the degree of fault of each party involved.

Intervening Acts Impacting Defendant's Liability

• Third-Party Acts: Unreasonable acts by third parties that break the cause-effect chain can relieve the defendant of liability. (Example: Haynes V. Harwood)
• Acts of Nature (Act of God): Natural events beyond human control, like storms or earthquakes, can absolve the defendant of liability. (Example: Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government)
• Acts of the Plaintiff: Plaintiff actions that worsen the harm caused by the defendant can complicate liability assessment. (Example: McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts)

Difference Between Novus Actus Interveniens and Contributory Negligence

Understanding Novus Actus Interveniens and Contributory Negligence

• Novus Actus Interveniens and Contributory Negligence are legal concepts that deal with the actions of the plaintiff in a case of harm caused by the defendant.

Key Differentiator: Timing of the Plaintiff's Actions

• Novus Actus Interveniens occurs when the plaintiff's actions occur after the original harm caused by the defendant, disrupting the chain of causation.
• Contributory Negligence, on the other hand, involves the plaintiff's actions contributing to the original harm caused by the defendant.

Illustrative Examples

• Example of Contributory Negligence: Mr. A walking on the wrong side of the road with low light settings, colliding with Mr. B who had no headlights on. Mr. A's actions contributed to the accident.
• Example of Novus Actus Interveniens: If Mr. A's actions post-accident worsened his injury unexpectedly, it would be considered a new intervening act.

Application in Ascertaining Medical Negligence

• The defense of negligence is increasingly utilized in various cases, notably in instances of Medical Negligence.
• A significant legal case demonstrating this application is the MEC Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha [8] case.
• In this particular case, the plaintiff sustained injuries in a car accident in June 2011 and was admitted to undergo surgery at the Bedford Orthopaedic Hospital. Unfortunately, the hospital staff failed to conduct necessary X-rays of the patient's leg, resulting in improper healing of the right femur.
• Consequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both the Road Accident Fund (RAF) and the hospital to claim damages for the harm suffered.
• After deliberation, the court determined that while the initial injury was caused by the actions of the RAF's insured driver, the negligence of the hospital in providing inadequate medical care was unanticipated by the RAF.
• This negligence was not deemed an 'independent intervening act' as it significantly impacted the liability of the RAF by disrupting the chain of causation.

Relevance in Law

• The defense plays a crucial role in establishing both factual and legal causation within legal proceedings.
• Over time, its application has evolved in alignment with case precedents, shaping its usage and significance.
• Besides being invoked as a defense by the defendant, the term also empowers the plaintiff to initiate a subsequent cause of action against the party responsible for an intervening act that exacerbates their injury or damage.