First Principles of Business Law

6. Causation

6.2.8. New intervening causes of harm

Case study: A wants to remove a large tree from his garden and decides to do the job himself. He has no experience of felling trees. When he cuts through the main trunk, the tree falls sideways, pulling down the electricity supply cables to his neighbour's house. The cables will take a week to repair and the neighbour, B, moves into a hotel until electricity is restored. While B is away, C, a thief, sees the house is empty, breaks in, and steals most of the contents. Which of the statements below are accurate?

1. On these facts, it is clear that A's negligent conduct created the situation in which the harm to B occurred.

2. On these facts, A should not be liable to B for the harm because C's voluntary and independent act can be seen as the true cause of that harm, rather than A's conduct.

3. Whether a subsequent act causing harm is treated as a new intervening cause is partly a policy decision which helps courts limit a defendant's liability in particular cases.

4. Only another person's voluntary conduct can be a 'novus actus interveniens'. A coincidental natural event will not be recognised for this purpose.