McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] UKHL 12

The appellant suffered a leg injury at work causing intermittent weakness. Days later, he attempted to descend steep stairs without assistance despite knowing his leg could give way. When it did, he jumped and fractured his ankle. The House of Lords held his unreasonable conduct broke the chain of causation.

Facts

The appellant sustained injuries to his back and hips during employment, caused by the respondents’ fault. His left leg would occasionally ‘give way’ without warning. Days later, while inspecting a flat, he attempted to descend a steep staircase without a handrail. He did so without assistance, despite his wife and brother-in-law being available, and while holding his young daughter’s hand. His leg gave way at the top of the stairs, and in attempting to avoid falling headfirst, he jumped approximately ten steps, landing on his feet but suffering a severe ankle fracture.

The Appellant’s Evidence

The appellant described the incident:

“Well, we came out of the house and I was at the top of the stairs with my daughter, and I had her by the hand, and I think it was my brother-in-law closed the door, and he was holding it while my wife was locking it, and I lifted my right foot to go down the stairs, and as I lifted my right foot, this left leg just seemed to vanish under me, and I threw my daughter back in case I would take her down with me. I found myself going and I couldn’t stop, and the only thing I could do was, instead of toppling down head first, I threw myself and I landed on my right—even when I landed on my feet, my left went from me, but it was mostly my right I landed on.”

Issues

The central issue was whether the respondents were liable for the injuries sustained in the second accident. Specifically, whether the appellant’s conduct in descending the stairs without assistance, knowing his leg could give way, constituted a novus actus interveniens that broke the chain of causation from the original injury.

Judgment

Lord Reid

Lord Reid held that if an injured man acts unreasonably, the defender cannot be held liable for injury caused by such unreasonable conduct. He explained that unreasonable conduct constitutes a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation. Lord Reid distinguished between foreseeable consequences and those for which a defender is liable, noting that foreseeability of unreasonable conduct does not make the defender liable for its consequences.

Lord Reid found the appellant acted unreasonably by attempting to descend the steep stairs without assistance despite knowing his leg could give way. He stated that the appellant knew his leg was liable to give way suddenly and must have realised he could only safely descend by going extremely slowly or waiting for assistance. However, Lord Reid noted that the appellant’s decision to jump in the emergency itself was not so unreasonable as to break the chain, as it was a natural response in an emergency.

Lord Guest

Lord Guest cited the principle from Allan v. Barclay that damages can only be claimed for consequences that naturally and directly arise from the wrong done. He agreed that reasonable human conduct is part of the ordinary course of things and that the appellant’s conduct was unreasonable, breaking the chain of causation.

Lords Hodson and Viscount Dilhorne

Both agreed with Lord Reid’s opinion and concurred in dismissing the appeal.

Legal Principles

The case established important principles regarding novus actus interveniens:

• An injured person must act reasonably in light of their disability
• Unreasonable conduct by the injured party breaks the chain of causation
• The defender is not liable for consequences of the injured party’s unreasonable conduct, even if foreseeable
• Actions taken in an emergency are judged less harshly than considered decisions made beforehand

Implications

This case is significant in Scottish delict law and tort law generally for clarifying when a claimant’s own conduct will break the chain of causation. It establishes that injured parties have a duty to act reasonably in managing their disability, and failure to do so may preclude recovery for subsequent injuries. The distinction between pre-emergency decisions and emergency reactions provides important guidance for assessing contributory conduct.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The respondents were not liable for the second accident as the appellant’s unreasonable conduct in descending the stairs without assistance, despite knowing his leg could give way, broke the chain of causation. Damages remained at £200 for the original injury only.

Source: McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] UKHL 12