The case of McKew v Holland is a significant authority in the law of tort, specifically concerning the principles of causation and the concept of novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act). This case explores the extent to which a defendant can be held liable for subsequent injuries that arise from an injured claimant’s own unreasonable conduct. The decision in McKew v Holland clarifies that a claimant’s unreasonable action following an initial injury can break the chain of causation, thus absolving the defendant of liability for further harm caused by the claimant’s conduct.
Facts of McKew v Holland
The claimant in McKew v Holland suffered an injury during the course of his employment as a result of the defendant employer’s negligence. The injury primarily affected his back and hips and rendered his left leg liable to giving way unexpectedly. This weakness in the claimant’s leg was acknowledged by the defendant, who accepted liability for the original injury caused at work.
Shortly after the initial injury, while the claimant was still recovering, he attempted to descend a steep concrete staircase that notably lacked a handrail. Importantly, the claimant undertook this task unaided, despite his injured leg’s tendency to give way. Partway down the steps, the claimant’s leg did indeed give way.
In response, rather than proceeding carefully or seeking assistance, he chose to jump down the remaining ten steps to the bottom of the staircase. This action resulted in a severe fracture of the claimant’s right ankle, which in turn caused a permanent disability.
Following the incident on the stairs, the claimant sought to recover damages for both the original injury and the subsequent ankle fracture. While the defendant accepted liability for the injury sustained at work, they contested liability for the ankle injury, arguing that the claimant’s own unreasonable actions constituted a break in the chain of causation.
Issues
The primary legal issue before the court in McKew v Holland was whether the claimant’s decision to descend the stairs unaided and subsequently jump ten steps constituted a novus actus interveniens. Specifically, the court had to determine:
- Whether the claimant’s conduct in jumping down the stairs was reasonable or whether it was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation established by the defendant’s original negligence.
- Whether the defendant remained liable for the injuries sustained as a result of the claimant’s fall down the stairs.
- To what extent the principle of foreseeability applied to the claimant’s subsequent injuries.
Legal Principles
The doctrine of causation in tort requires that the defendant’s breach of duty must be the cause of the claimant’s harm. However, liability can be limited if a novus actus interveniens—a new intervening act—breaks the chain of causation. This intervening act may be an act or event that is sufficiently independent of the defendant’s negligence and unforeseeable, such that it absolves the defendant from responsibility for subsequent injuries.
The courts have held that a claimant must act reasonably in mitigating their injuries and must take reasonable care for their own safety during recovery. Where a claimant’s own unreasonable act contributes to further injury, this may constitute a novus actus interveniens and break the chain of causation.
In McKew v Holland, these principles were examined in the context of a claimant’s physical incapacity and subsequent conduct that exacerbated his injury.
McKew v Holland Judgement
The Court in McKew v Holland held that the claimant’s act of attempting to descend the steep staircase without assistance, knowing that his leg was prone to giving way, and then jumping down the last ten steps, was unreasonable and constituted a novus actus interveniens.
The claimant’s conduct was not a natural consequence of the original injury but an independent, unforeseeable act that broke the chain of causation. The defendant employer was therefore not liable for the injuries sustained as a result of the fall down the stairs.
Lord Reid, delivering a leading judgement, emphasised the duty of a claimant to take reasonable care of themselves after an injury. The claimant’s decision to descend a steep staircase unaided and to jump down steps despite his injury was held to be a failure to act reasonably and carefully during his recovery.
Consequently, the defendant’s liability was limited to the original injury sustained at work, and no damages were recoverable for the ankle fracture and subsequent disability caused by the stair incident.
Reasoning in McKew v Holland
The court’s reasoning in McKew v Holland focused on two important aspects:
- Reasonableness of the Claimant’s Conduct: The claimant was aware of the weakness in his leg but nevertheless chose to descend a dangerous staircase without assistance. This decision was made while he was still in a vulnerable state. The court viewed this as a reckless and unreasonable risk, given the circumstances.
- Break in the Chain of Causation: Because the claimant’s conduct was unreasonable and unforeseeable, it amounted to a novus actus interveniens. This meant that the defendant could not be held liable for injuries arising from that conduct, as it was a new and independent cause of harm.
The decision in McKew v Holland highlights the limits on defendant liability in negligence cases when the claimant’s own actions contribute to additional harm. The claimant’s duty to act reasonably during recovery was paramount, and failing to do so can preclude further damages.
Conclusion
The case of McKew v Holland provides a clear example of the application of novus actus interveniens in tort law. It establishes that a claimant’s unreasonable action, taken independently after an initial injury, can break the chain of causation and relieve the defendant of liability for further injuries.
In summary, the claimant in McKew v Holland was entitled to damages for the original injury caused by the employer’s negligence but was not entitled to damages for the subsequent ankle injury, which arose from his own unreasonable and risky behaviour. The case firmly sets out that claimants must act reasonably and take care in their recovery, or else face the risk of limiting their compensation.
