USMANU DANFODIOUNIVERSITY, SOKOTO.

FACULTYOFCOMMON AND ISLAMICLAW.

COURSETITLE: LAW OFTORT.

CORSECODE: LAW 304.

GROUPH PRESENTATION.

THEDEFENSEOFNOVUSACTUSINTERVENIENS.

LECTURER: DR. MUHAMMAD MANSURALIYU ESQ.

LIST OF STUDENTS NAME AND ADMISSION NUMBER

1: MUAZU SHAIMAU BASHIR 2010500027

2: TIJJANI RABIA 2010500116

3: FATIMA MUSA MAIDAWA 2010500118

4: KABIRU FARIDA 2010500109

5: FATIMA OHUNENE ABDULMALIK 2010500045

6: SALAHUDEEN RUKAYYAT 2010500099

7: AHMAD FATIMA ZAHRA 2221803050

8: ABDULLAHI HAFSAT TOGUN 2010110013

9: HAUWAU H KANGIWA 2221803032

10: IBRAHIM HALIMATU GARACCHI 2010110006

11: JANET BALA SULE 2010110015

12: SULYMAN HADIZAH GBEMISHOLA 2010110024

13: MUSTAPHA SHUKURAT 2010110038

14: SADIKA LABBO. 2010110004

15: NAJAHATU ABDULMAJID YAHAYA 2221803033
INTODUCTION

Actus novus interveniens is a legal maxim that means ‘an act that interferes and
change the course of action of the outcome. Simply means, a new action coming in
between. The intervening act which alters the course of events and the outcome must
be unplanned, it should not be foreseeable, the act must be inevitable and also without
the knowledge of the defendant. If the intervening act is a pre-meditated agenda, the
defense of novus actus interveniens stands null and void and would not reduce the
liability of the defense. For an act to be considered novus actus.it is a new intervening
act or event that breaks the causal link between an original wrongful act and its
consequence. The plea or defense of novus actus interveniens is considered in both
criminal and civil law but our concern here is under the civil law (tort)1 .

This is a defense for the defendant to argue in a situation where there is an

intervention in the causal link. The defendant has to argue that the furtherance of the
tort of the plaintiff has lost tract with the tort by the defendant. It is a plea by the
defendant to relief him from further responsibility caused by the legal wrong2 .

The case of HABER V WALKER3 is a significant case regarding the defense of novus
actus interveniens. It is a case that lead to the establishment of the defense of novus
actus interveniens, foreseeability and also causation. In this case an action was brought
by the plaintiff under part III of the Wrongs Act 1958 as administratrix of the deceased
person’s estate. The plaintiff’s husband had suffered serious injuries in a motor car
accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. As a result, he became mentally
deranged and subsequently committed suicide allegedly due to the injuries sustained in
the accident. The plaintiff sought to recover damages resulting from the deceased’s
death. The jury found that the husband’s death was caused due to the defendant’s
negligence. But they also found out that the defendant could not reasonably be
expected to have foreseen that the husband would die by suicide which might enable
him to raise a plea of novus actus interveniens. The jury also found that the deceased
was mentally incapacitated at the time of the suicide. The decision was held in the favor
of the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed to the full Court of the Supreme Court of VICTORIA.

1 Sklaw.au
2 www.law teacher.com
3 1963 VR339
 The appeal was dismissed and the court upheld the initial judgement in favor of the
plaintiff. Applying the principles of law to the findings of the jury, the majority held the
defendant’s negligence caused the deceased’s death.

The court discussed the principles of causation, stating that an intervening occurrence
could severe the causal connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and
harm caused to the deceased if it was a voluntary human action or an independent
event.

The central issue was whether the deceased’s act of suicide could be regarded as a
voluntary act so as to break the chain of causation. The court found out that if the
deceased was legally insane when he committed the suicide and if the insanity resulted
directly from the injuries inflicted by the defendant’s negligence, then the causal
connection remained unbroken.

Another issue before the court was whether the deceased’s death by suicide was
reasonably foreseeable where by the court held that although the suicide is not
foreseeable but rather the defendant’s negligent act, it was not necessary to
demonstrate that the death was reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s
conduct.

When the plea is made, the court has to decide the question whether; the new act
which cause the causation intervened ought reasonably to have been foreseen by the
defendant. Where the answer is yes, that the defendant ought to have reasonably
foreseen the act could intervene and use his wrongful act to cause injury to others, he
would be held liable and the plea will not avail him. In a situation whereby the act of
the defendant is too remote to the further legal wrong, the defendant would not be
held liable for such wrong4 .

This act or defense is related to negligence in most of the time that is negligence act
from the defendant where by without such negligence the defense or plea will not come
into place for example in the case of MANGE V DRURIE5 . In this case the plaintiff was
knocked down by a lorry negligently by the defendant and he sustained injury. He was
immediately taken to the hospital by the defendant. Before the completion of the
treatment and against medical advice, he discharged himself and did not come back to
the hospital for two days. In this two days period, the leg got infected and was
amputated. He sued the defendant for damages for the loss of the leg. The defendant
was held not liable. In this case, we can see that the first act was to the first negligence
which led to the amputation of the leg.

4 ESEMALAMI LAW OFTORT

5 1970 NNLR62
 In novus actus interveniens, the defendant in the first act of negligence is liable of the
tort but where there is an intervening chain caused by the plaintiff or other third party,
he shall not be held liable for the second tort. See the case of MCKEW V HOLLAND6 . In
this case, the complainant suffered injury in the course of his job which meant his left
leg could give way underneath him. A few days after the incident, the complainant tried
to come down a set of steep step, which did not have a handrail. His injured leg gave
way beneath him and attempted to jump the remaining 10 steps which he fell and
severely injured his ankle and left with disability. While it was held that the defendant
are liable for the first tort, the second was seen as an intervening act which has broken
the chain of the first act.

There are ways of act intervening which may break the chain of cause. These include:
1: The intervening act of the plaintiff

2: The intervening act of a third party

THE INTERVENING ACT OF PLAINTIFF

This is where the intervening act is caused by the plaintiff himself for instance a
failure by the plaintiff to mitigate loss.
The act of the plaintiff may amount to contributory negligence. Where the new act
intervening is act or omission of the plaintiff, the principles of contributory negligence
will apply and the damages the recoverable by the plaintiff will accordingly be reduced
to the extent the plaintiff is assessed blameable for accident or tort. On the other hand,
the plaintiff’s conduct or contributory negligence may constitute a new intervening act,
which is sufficient to break the chain cause and relieve the defendant’s liability. See the
case of MANGE V DRURIE and the case of MCKEW V HOLLAND supra. In both cases we
can see that the chain was of causation was broken by both plaintiff.
Is some other cases, the defense did not succeed and the defendant is held liable for
the intervening act because the causal link or chain is not broken. In the case of EKWO
V ENECHUKWU 7 , the plaintiff was in the defendant’s lorry which had an accident and as
a result the he sustained an injury in this hand as a result of the negligent fixing of a
seat in the lorry of the defendant. Immediately after the accident the defendant’s
servant offered to take the plaintiff to hospital for necessary medication, the plaintiff
refused and instead went to a native doctor. The plaintiff went to the hospital seven
days later after the hand has become infected and gangrenous which led to the
amputation of the hand. The doctor said that the amputation of the hand was due to
the septic condition of the injury. The doctor in his evidence said that the injury could
not have led to amputation if the plaintiff had come to the hospital immediately for

6 1969 ALLER1621 HL
7 1954 LJRWACA
treatment. The arising question in the words of FOSTER SUTTON P in the WACA was
whether it could be; ’said with reasonable certainty that an independent cause
intervened between the defendant’s negligence and the necessity for amputation’. The
WACA held in favor of the plaintiff because it considered the going to a native doctor as
reasonable because of the traditional status of the country and it is a belief by many of
the traditional culture and people that those herbs or traditional drugs work although it
is not the best treatment therefore the causal link is still there and not broken8 .so the
defense did not avail in this case .Also see the case of BAKER V WILLOUGHBY9 and
WIELAND V LORD CARPETS1 . In both cases, the defendants were held liable and the
intervening act did not break the chain.

THE INTERVENING ACT OF A THIRD PARTY

This is an act of a third party intervening between the act or omission and the
damage caused. The chain of causation depends on whether intervention is foreseeable
for example if the plaintiff with the minor leg injury got shot by a third party that would
also sever the connection between the defendant’s action and the harm now he
suffered. For the application of novus actus interveniens, the intervention of the third
party must solely be out of their own will. The defendant should not have knowledge of
the act and the furtherance caused by the third party will be considered a voluntary
action1 . The intervening act should seem highly unlikeable. There should be no 1
relationship between the original act and the following act.
THE DETERMINANTS OF NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

In order to decide which act falls under the category of the maxim, we shall move
further by understanding the determinant which are:
1: For the application of novus actus interveniens , the intervention of the third party
shall be solely out of their own will. The defendant should have no knowledge of the act
and the furtherance caused by the third party will be considered voluntary action.

2: The intervening act should seem highly unlikely. There should be no relationship
between the original act and the following act.
3: Novus actus interveniens are acts that are independent. Meaning that the intervening
act should be beyond the reasonable circumstances. An example of the same is a
situation where the defendant has hit a pedestrian with his car. Lying unconscious with

8 ESEMALAMI LAW OFTORTS

9 1970 WLR50 AH
1 1969 3 ALLER1006
1 HOGANLOVELLS.COM
1 www.Lyonsdavidson.co.uk
minor injuries, the plaintiff is hit by a lightening strike from the sky due to which he
suffers injuries and dies. In this scenario, the defendant will not be held liable for the
death of the pedestrian as he did not die due to accident but due to the lightening
strike1 .

EXECEPTION TO NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

The law provides four exceptions to novus actus interveniens:

1: when the defendant knowingly procures the intervening act.

2: When there is no complete responsibility for interfering factor.

3: When the intervening act is such that may be fairly expected to happen.
4: When the intervening act is a simple reflex or spontaneous action1 .

CONCUSION
To determine whether or not an occurrence or act will carry legal weight of novus
actus interveniens, it must ordinarily be either; A human action that is properly to be
regarded as voluntary; or a casual independent event, the conjunction of which with the
wrongful act or omission is by ordinary circumstances extremely unlikely as to be
termed coincidence. The authority for this test is HABER V WALKER1 .

1 Yclub.com
1 Legal service india
1 1963