Description of the legal term Intervening Cause:
Intervening cause, also known as a novus actus interveniens, refers to an event that occurs after a defendant’s act or omission, which contributes to the harm or damage and which may either reduce or absolve the defendant’s liability. In the legal system of the United Kingdom, an intervening cause must be an event or act that was not foreseeable by the defendant, and it must break the chain of causation between the defendant’s initial act or omission and the ultimate harm or loss suffered by the claimant.
To establish liability in tort law, the claimant must show that there is a causal link between the defendant’s breach of duty and the damage suffered. However, if an intervening cause arises that becomes the main contributor to the outcome, it may break this chain of causation. This concept ensures that a defendant is not held liable for damages that were caused by events outside their control or that were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of their actions.
The test for an intervening cause involves examining whether the intervening event is a foreseeable and natural result of the defendant‘s conduct. If it is, the defendant remains liable. If not, and the intervening cause is considered both independent and unforeseeable, liability may be shifted from the defendant to the party responsible for the intervening cause, or the defendant may be absolved of liability altogether.
The concept operates in both criminal and civil law. In criminal law, if an intervening cause contributes to the death of a victim, it could mean the difference between a conviction for murder or manslaughter and an acquittal. In civil law, an intervening cause could potentially shield a defendant from a negligence claim if their actions did not ultimately lead to the harm experienced by the plaintiff, due to the intervention of an independent event.
Intervening causes may include the acts of third parties, natural phenomena, or the actions of the claimant. It is crucial to assess whether the intervening act was so significant that it overshadows the defendant’s breach as the effective cause of harm. It is not enough for the intervening cause to merely contribute to the harm; it must be sufficient to be considered as the main cause.
Legal context in which the term Intervening Cause may be used:
One example of an intervening cause might arise in a car accident scenario. Suppose a driver negligently runs a red light and hits another vehicle, causing the driver of that vehicle only minor injuries. However, as the injured driver waits for assistance, another vehicle, completely unrelated to the first incident, carelessly veers off the road and strikes the injured driver, causing fatal injuries. In this case, the actions of the second driver could be considered an intervening cause. If it is determined that the second accident was unforeseeable and was the direct cause of the fatality, the initial negligent driver may not be held responsible for the death, though they may still be liable for the initial minor injuries and damages.
In another context, consider a situation where a customer in a supermarket slips on a wet floor, sustaining an injury. The customer decides to sue the supermarket for negligence. While recuperating from the injury, the customer decides to self-medicate with a powerful drug not prescribed by any doctor. This self-medication leads to severe complications, aggravating the injury significantly. The supermarket might argue that the customer’s decision to self-medicate was an intervening cause that broke the chain of causation from the original slip injury. If the act of self-medication is considered by the court to be unforeseeable and entirely independent of the supermarket’s negligence, it might limit or absolve the supermarket from further liability for the aggravated injury.
The British legal system recognizes the importance of the concept of intervening cause as it ensures a fair assessment of liability and responsibility. By acknowledging that certain events can break the chain of causation, it provides a mechanism to ensure that defendants are not unfairly burdened with unforeseeable consequences of their actions. Equally, it safeguards the legal principle that claimants should not be compensated for harm that is not a direct result of the defendant’s conduct.