Novus Actus Interveniens

Introduction

Novus actus interveniens is a Latin phrase that, when translated, amounts to ‘new intervening act.’ It is a principle of Tort law.

Novus actus interveniens, in relation to a tortious action for negligence, can be defined as any intervening act that can separate or break off the legal connection between a defendant’s conduct and the final injury incurred by the plaintiff, thus preventing the defendant from being held legally liable for the plaintiff’s harm. For an act to be considered as Novus actus, it must be reasonably unpredictable. If the second and subsequent act could be apprehended or stemmed from the first act itself, then this principle will not be applicable, and the legal burden will not be waived off the defendant. Attributed to this principle is a general rule of measuring the remoteness of damage. If any outside force (Act of God or intervention by a third party) or the plaintiff himself causes interventions subsequent damage to the injury already caused, then it will amount to the remoteness of damage.

Case Of Martin V Isbard (1947)

For understanding this concept better, let us consider the case of Martin Vs. Isbard, a 1947 English case. In this case, Martin, the plaintiff, was traveling in a taxi which met with an accident because of the negligence of the driver. The plaintiff had experienced a concussion as a result of this accident and, when taken to the hospital, was told that she suffered a major fracture in her skull. After recovering from the initial shock, although she returned to work, she would occasionally feel dizzy and experience headaches. For this reason, she stopped working and went to Melbourne with her parents. However, after a few weeks, she was told that a review of the X-ray showed that she had no skull fracture. After this, she went under another X-ray examination which again said that she did suffer a skull fracture. But a review of this report also resulted in the finding of an erroneous medical report falsely stating that she suffered from a skull fracture. Before this case went into a trial, the plaintiff had another X-ray done, revealing she never suffered any injury in her skull. It was also determined that the occasional periods of dizziness that she faced were more related to the stress induced from the wrong X-ray reports. Now the question put before the Court was to determine the gravity of responsibility the taxi driver ought to bear. Had he not been negligent in the first place, the accident would not have taken place and resulted in the misleading X-ray reports. The judge drew a conclusion that the anxiety caused to Miss Martin was a result of negligence on the part of the doctors. Thus, the Court opined that the two wrong X-rays were ‘Novus actus interveniens’ or a ‘new intervening act’ which cut off the direct link between the final injury suffered and the initial negligence contributed by the defendant.

Test Of Isolation

The test of isolation is a new method that has gained importance while deciding if the defendant can be made liable for the final injury caused to a plaintiff constituting one or more causes of harm. According to this test, if the relation to the illegal conduct (an omission or commission) which resulted in causing damage to the plaintiff is regarded to have been snapped when it is separated from its repercussions, then the defendant is no longer accountable for any consequences that may follow. When the chain of causation is broken in the eyes of the law, making the former act exhausting itself, the wrongdoer can no longer be held liable for any further upshot. This might be the result of an intervention of a third party or an act of God resulting in the second act of violation.

Exceptions To The Rule Of Novus Actus Interveniens:

The exceptions to the rule of Novus actus interveniens are listed as follows:

If the defendant has intentionally undertaken the intervening act in question
If the intervening actor cannot be made fully responsible for the outcome
If the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable
If the intervening acts in question are some involuntary action or a bare reflex

Relevant Case Laws:

VOSBURG V PUTNEY, 1891 (Defendant made liable even when the injury was not foreseeable.)

In this case, a boy kicked another in the classroom from across the aisle. It turned out that the victim was suffering from an inflamed microbiological infection, which caused him to lose all use of his leg. Undoubtedly no one could have foreseen the severity of the injuries. Despite this, the Wisconsin Supreme court determined that the kicking was illegal because it breached the “order and decorum of the classroom.” Hence, the perpetrator was held entirely responsible for the injuries.

SMITH V LEECH BRAIN & CO, 1962 (Defendant made liable as the initial injury was foreseeable.)

In the English case of Smith v Leech Brain & Co (1962), molten metal was splashed on an employee. It resulted in a burn on his lips. The tissue which got burned happened to be premalignant. Later, after three years, he died of cancer, which was initially triggered by this injury. The Court held that since the initial damage was foreseeable, the defendant was liable for all the harm.

HABER V WALKER, 1962 (Intervening act in question when combined with the initial wrong does not point towards a mere coincidence.)

In Haber v Walker, the Court arrived at the judgment that a plaintiff cannot be held accountable for a Novus actus interveniens ( a new intervening act) if the chain of causes is broken by a deliberate, human act or an external incident that, which when combined with the wrongful act, is so rare as to be deemed as happenstance.

NADER V URBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF NSW, 1985 (Victim must be considered, including his mental, social, physical, and economic attributes.)

This is an Australian case where the plaintiff, a 10-year-old kid, was struck in the head by a bus stop pole while exiting a slow-moving bus. This injury led him to develop Ganser syndrome, one of the rarest psychological diseases. In response to this, the defendant claimed that the child had developed this illness due to his family’s reaction to the mishap. Judge McHugh, in this case, however, concluded that the plaintiff should be considered with all his weaknesses, beliefs as well as reactions. All of his social, economic, and physical attributes must be considered. Since this accident resulted in a ten-year-old boy reacting to his parent’s apprehension regarding the accident and developing a hysterical condition, the victim must be duly compensated by the defendant.

MAHONEY V KRUSCHICH DEMOLITIONS, 1985(Intervening actor cannot be made fully liable)

The plaintiff, Glogovic, while working on the demolition of a powerhouse for the respondent, had suffered some injuries. When he was being treated by the appellant Mahony due to medical negligence, his injuries were aggravated. The Court held that medical treatment of injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence did not result in Novus actus since it was not inexcusably terrible or utterly outside the confines of what a credible medical practitioner might prescribe.

Conclusion

In conclusion, one can say any act which severs or cuts off the direct link between the defendant and the final injury caused is termed as Novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act). In such a case, the defendant can be made liable only to the extent of the initial negligence caused by him and not for the final injury. For example: If person A suffers an injury on his leg because of B and is then shot by person C on the injured leg, B will only be held liable for the initial negligence and not the gunshot injury.

The article has been written by Debasmita Nandi, a first-year law student of CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), LAVASA.

Latest Posts

Archives