McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621 (HL)

Facts

The claimant had previously suffered a leg injury caused by the defendant’s negligence at a construction site. Later, while descending a steep staircase without holding the handrail, he fell and fractured his ankle. The defendant argued that this second fall was a new intervening act, breaking the chain of causation from the original negligence.

---

Issue

Can the claimant’s own unreasonable conduct break the chain of causation, limiting the defendant’s liability?

---

Decision

The House of Lords held that the defendant was not liable for the second injury.

The claimant’s decision to descend the stairs unreasonably and without assistance was a novus actus interveniens. The second injury was not a natural or foreseeable consequence of the first.

---

Legal Principle

A claimant’s own unreasonable or reckless actions may break the chain of causation. Foreseeable or reasonable reactions to the defendant’s negligence generally do not break the chain. Distinguishes between contributory negligence and a complete break in causation.

---

Importance

• Illustrates how personal conduct can affect liability.

• Frequently cited in cases where injury sequences involve multiple incidents.

• Key for understanding limits of defendant liability after initial negligence.