• Ms Asima Amin Nazki

Novus Actus Interveniens

Introduction

Novus actus interveniens is Latin for a new intervening act. In the Law of Delict 6th Edition, Neethling states that a Novus actus interveniens is an independent event which, after the wrongdoer's act has been concluded either caused or contributed to the consequence concerned. A novus actus breaks the casual chain between the initial wrongdoer’s action and the liability that imputed to him or her as a result thereof.


A requirement for an act or omission committed after the initial wrongdoer's act to constitute a Novus actus is that the secondary act was not reasonably foreseeable. If the subsequent event was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the initial wrongful act, it is not to be considered as a novus actus capable of limiting the liability to be imputed on the initial wrongdoer. As a general rule, the damage is said to be too remote where it is caused by the intervening act of human volition of a third party, or when the injury to the plaintiff might have been occasioned by the intervening act of volition on the part of the plaintiff himself. The question of whether an initially negligent person, would be liable for all the consequences ad infinitum, expected or unexpected, probable or improbable, depends for its answer upon the application of a further test which has recently come into prominence, that is, the test of isolation.


According to this test, where the wrongful act is isolated from the consequences is deemed to have been snapped, and the defendant ceases to be liable for such consequences as having arisen after the intervention of that other act of human violation. The prior act having exhausted itself the chain of causation has in contemplation of law been broken and the wrongdoer can no longer be held responsible for further consequences.


A Novus actus is not confined to either factual or legal causation only and can interrupt the causal chain at either point. In respect of factual causation, a novus actus interrupts the nexus between the wrongful act of the initial wrongdoer and the consequences of his act to such an extent that it frees him of the liability of his actions.


However, when assessing novus actus in respect of legal causation, regard must be had to the aspects of policy, fairness, reasonableness, and justice to determine whether liability for the initial wrongful act can still be imputed to the initial wrongdoer and whether the causal chain has been broken. A Novus Actus, therefore, disrupts the directness aspect of the initial act and the subjective test of legal causation cannot be fulfilled.


As a novus actus is an independent intervening act, it can be occasioned by anyone or anything other than the initial wrongdoer. This general category also includes the injured party himself or herself, another third party, or even an act of God. Therefore, an injured patient who walks on a slippery floor after having been injured thereafter occasioning further surgery will have created his own Novus actus, or where a storm causes further and greater damage to a property after it has been damaged by a wrongdoer will also be viewed as a Novus actus. In Weld Bundell b. Stephens, The appellant employed the respondent, a chartered accountant to investigate the affairs of a company. He gave written instructions that contained matter which was libelous of two officials of the company. Respondent passed these instructions to his partner, who carelessly left them on the floor at the company’s office.


The company's manager found them and communicated their contents to the officials who then recovered damages for the libel from the appellant. In the instant action, the appellant could recover nominal damages only. He could not recover upon the basis of an indemnity for his actual loss in the libel action because the manager's action was the voluntary act of a free agent over whom the appellant had no control, for whose actions he was not answerable. Elements of Novus Actus Interveniens

In order to decide whether or not an event or an act will bear the legal weight of novus actus interveniens, any of these would usually be:

  • Human behaviour that should be fairly treated as voluntary; or

  • A causally distinct phenomenon, the relation of which is to exceeding unlikely to be considered a coincidence by ordinary circumstances of the incorrect act or omission.

The authority for this test is Haber V. Walker (1963).


If a complainant who has sustained a minor leg fracture due to the negligence of the defendant tries to leap from a roof, breaking their leg, it is an example of a Voluntary human action that may sever the chain of the causation for negligence. Here, the voluntary human intervention of the complainant will break the connection between the actions of the defendant and the damage sustained now.


A third party’s voluntary human intervention may also break the chain of causation. For example, if the complainant with the minor leg injury was fired by a third party in the leg, it would also sever the connection between the actions of the defendant and the damage now sustained.


An example of a causally independent event that may sever the chain of causation for negligence might be when an asteroid is hit from space in the same leg by a plaintiff that has sustained a minor leg fracture due to negligence of the defendant. Here, the causally autonomous occurrence will break the link between the actions of the defendant and the damage now sustained.


Exceptions to the rule of Novus actus interveniens:

  • Where the intervening act has been intentionally procured by the defendant

  • Where the intervening actor is not fully responsible

  • Where the intervening act is such as could be reasonably anticipated

  • Where the intervening act is a mere reflex or involuntary action


Conclusion

The continuity of events can be disrupted by a new unpredicted occurrence that cannot possibly be a predictable complication. For such cases, novus actus interveniens takes place as the judicial processes in the case are changed. If death is due to recent and unrelated actions, the attacker is not held liable for the death of the victim.


With regard to tortuous claims, Novus actus is a diverse instrument that can often be used as part of one’s evaluation of a lawsuit.


It is necessary to ensure that when evaluating cases relating to tortious damages, there have been no subsequent actions that may have severed the causal chain with respect to liability.


This is also a factor that is ignored or only established through lawsuits at a far later point. Therefore, in order to ensure that all the facts are before you when reviewing a matter, it is important that thorough inquiries are conducted. A novus actus interveniens has the purpose of restricting the liability of a defendant and can also be a valuable instrument when determining claimants for damages.


The author is a Fifth-year Law Student pursuing B.A. LL.B from Central University of Kashmir.


188 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

STRICT LIABILITY Introduction The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands v Fletcher. In the year 1868, the principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardou

Introduction Malicious prosecution is defined as “a judicial proceeding instituted by one person against another, from wrongful or improper motive and without probable cause to sustain it”. This tort

Introduction Trespass denotes interference without any lawful justification. It may be against person, land or goods. Trespass to a person denotes unreasonable interference with the body of a person w