This document discusses the legal doctrine of novus actus interveniens. It begins with an introduction to causation and how an intervening act can break the chain of causation between the original wrongful act and the resulting harm. It then explains the concepts of factual causation, using the "but for" test, and legal causation. Novus actus interveniens refers to a new and independent act that occurs after the original act and contributes to the harm. For an intervening act to absolve or limit liability, it must not be reasonably foreseeable and must be the actual cause of the harm. The document provides examples and essential elements to understand this doctrine.

1. NOVUS ACTUS
INTERVENIENS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• DOCTRINE OF CAUSATION
• FACTUAL CAUSATION
• LEGAL CAUSATION
• NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS
• CONCLUSION

2. INTRODUCTION
We have generally known that when a person causes injury to the other, he
is liable to pay damages to the person who is injured. And when it comes to
crime, one more element adds to the intention of the accused. So, for a
crime to be proved there must be actus reus (conduct of the accused) as well
as mens rea (guilty intention of accused).
However, what if the consequences of your act turn out to be completely
different from what you actually intended? Would you be liable for the act
that you intended to commit or the result that has actually come out? Let us
consider a situation slightly different from the aforesaid one. In this situation
a person intended to commit some wrong or crime, but while he was giving
effect to it some other person’s act intervened in between, and that
intervening act became the reason for the resulting offence.

3. • For instance, imagine X wanted to kidnap Y so he mixed sleeping pills
in Y’s water, which were innocuous. Y drank the water, but before the
sleeping pills would start working, he took a bite from his food in
which someone else had already mixed poison, due to which Y
immediately died. The reason for Y’s death was poison. Now what
would X be liable for, murder? or Attempt to kidnap? or not liable for
anything at all? An additional element in determining the liability in
such cases is the “causation”, which gives rise to the question
whether or not the act of the accused is the exact or direct cause of
the result. This article aims to elucidate the concept of causation, its
various aspects as well as to wipe off the confusion with regards to all
the aforementioned questions.

4. DOCTRINE OF CAUSATION
• The term ‘causation’ generally implies the relation between the cause and
effect of any particular occurrence. Likewise, in legal terms, causation
means the connection between the conduct of the defendant and the
injury suffered by the plaintiff. The basic idea behind the doctrine of
causation is that a person must face liability for the outcome of his own
actions. It is the concept of causation that helps to determine the extent of
liability emerging out of a legal wrong on the part of a defendant. It
basically acts like a sieve that filters out all the external factors unlinked
with the defendant’s conduct which contributed to the consequences, and
hence holds him responsible only for his role. For example, A damaged the
brakes of B’s car so that B meets an accident and dies. While driving, B dies
due to a cardiac arrest and not because of the brake failure. Here, despite
the presence of mens rea on the part of A, he could not be held liable for
murder as the death of B did not occur because of failed brakes, which was
the act of A. He could, however, be held liable for attempt to murder.

5. The doctrine of causation could be established by its two elements
which are ‘factual causation’ and ‘legal causation’. In other words,
these are the two elements of causation that ascertain whether or not
the defendant could be held liable for the injury caused to the
aggrieved. If yes, then to what extent he could be made responsible for
the same?

6. FACTUAL CAUSATION
• In order to establish the factual causation, a test known as “but for”
test is used, which says that “but for the defendant’s conduct, the
injury would not have resulted”. In simple words, it means that if the
defendant had not performed an act, then the plaintiff would not
have suffered the harm by any means at all. To prove factual
causation, it must be proved that the defendant’s action was a
necessary condition for the consequences faced by the plaintiff. On
passing the ‘but for’ test, the defendant could be held liable for the
damage.

7. • In the case of R v. White, the defendant attempted to kill his mother (deceased)
by adding poison in her drink. But the deceased died of a heart attack soon, even
before the poison took effect. Here the “but for” test was applied and was
observed that but for the defendant’s attempt to kill the deceased by poisoning
her, she would still have died owing to the heart attack. Therefore, the defendant
was liable for attempt to murder, but not murder.
• In another case of Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management
Committee, the deceased felt very sick so he went to the hospital. He was asked
to go home instead of getting treated. Later, he died of arsenic poisoning. The
Court held that but for the hospital’s conduct, the deceased would still have died
as, firstly, the doctor was at home and probably have not been able to check the
deceased in time, secondly, even if the doctor had checked no antidote was
readily available so as to give it to the deceased in time.

8. • In R v. Pagett, the defendant fired at the police and when he was fired back by the
police, he pulled a pregnant teenager girl in front of him in order to protect
himself behind her due to which she died. In this, the Court observed that but for
the conduct of the defendant, the deceased would not have died. Hence, the
defendant, being the factual cause, was held liable for manslaughter.
• However, there is a limitation with regards to the application of ‘but for’ test. If
we apply the said test in cases where there have been more than one causes of
the resulting damage, and all of them individually are sufficient to cause such
damage, then all the wrongdoers may escape the liability by pleading for this
defence. For example, A stabbed C in the abdomen and at the same time B
stabbed C in the chest and C died. Both these wounds were fatal enough to kill C.
Here, if we apply the ‘but for’ test, both A and B would escape the liability
because even if none of them had not stabbed C, he would still have died.

9. LEGAL CAUSATION
• After establishing factual causation, it is legal causation that needs to be
established. In case of legal causation, the question that is asked is
“whether or not the act of the defendant was the ‘operative’ and
‘substantial’ cause of the consequences”.
• For instance, A hit B with a bat due to which B had a hand fracture. While B
was being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, the ambulance met with
an accident and B died in that ambulance crash. Now, in order to
determine the legal causation, we need to see if the act of A was the
operative and substantial cause of death of B or not. Clearly, the operative
and substantial cause of B’s death is the accident and not A’s act, so he is
not liable for killing B, although he could be made liable for the initial
grievous hurt that he inflicted upon B.

10. • So, what we are basically doing to prove innocence of the accused
persons or commuting their liability in such cases is that, firstly, we
are proving that there has been a break in the chain of causation of
the defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s injury. Secondly, we are
identifying the act that has broken the said chain. And finally, we are
proving that the aforesaid act which has broken the chain is the
actual cause of the harm that has been suffered by the aggrieved
person. This leads us to another crucial concept known as “novus
actus interveniens”.

11. NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS
• Novus actus interveniens is a Latin maxim which literally means “new
intervening act”. Basically, it refers to a new act that takes place
independently after the defendant has concluded his act and
contributes to the resulting harm. What Novus actus does is that it
breaks the continuous series of action between the offender’s
conduct and the resulting injury. Hence, it helps the wrongdoer to
escape or limit the liability arising from the final outcome.

12. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
• An essential condition for an act to be novus actus is that such an act must not
have been reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. If the intervening act is
found to be reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s act, then it
would not be considered a novus actus. A novus actus may either be an act of the
injured person himself, or an act of third party, or an act of God, but it could
never be an act of the wrongdoer himself. Thus, if a person dies due to lightning
over him after he was injured by the defendant, a Novus actus gets created by
the act of god in such a case.
• The concept of novus actus interveniens must not be confused with “contributory
negligence”. In case of contributory negligence, the negligent act or omission is
done by the aggrieved person before the occurrence of the event that leads to
injury. For instance, in an accident between a car and a motorbike, if the motor
bike rider was riding with a speed more than the limit, then it would be
contributory negligence on the part of the rider. However, in case of novus actus
interveniens, the intervening act takes place after the defendant has already
committed the act which would lead to damage in the first place.

13. • In the case of Haynes v. Harwood, the defendant owed a two-horse van which
was left unattended by his servant on a busy street. A kid threw stones on the
horses due to which they bolted on the street carrying the van with them. A
police constable while trying to stop them suffered several injuries for which he
claimed compensation. Now, the important question that arose, in this case, was
whether this act of intervention by the rescuer is novus actus interveniens, which
breaks the chain of causation so that the initial negligence of the defendant be
considered to be remote cause of the rescuer’s injury? Here, it was held that the
rescuer’s act was not a kind of act that could make the defendant’s negligence a
remote cause for the plaintiff’s injury. The defendant pleaded that his negligence
is a remote cause while the child’s mischief was the proximate cause for the
damage, however, the Court observed that such a mischief on the part of a child
was reasonably foreseeable due to which it could not be considered a novus
actus interveniens and defendant was held liable.

14. • In another case of Lynch v. Nurdin, the defendant left his horse cart
on the road. Certain children started playing with it and one child
jumped on the cart setting the horse in motion, due to which he
suffered injuries. The Court held that although the misconduct of the
child was novus actus interveniens, the proximate cause of the
accident was defendant’s negligence because such mischievous
behaviour on the part of children could very well be apprehended
especially when you have left an open opportunity for them to do so.

15. CONCLUSION
• It is often said that justice must not only be done but also must appear to be done. And
what we ordinarily understand from justice being done is that the offender or the
wrongdoer is held responsible for his or her acts and is punished or made to compensate
the injured person. Settlement of liability of the wrongdoer is one of the most crucial
stages of any legal proceeding because it is one of those elements that reveals public
whether justice has been done or not.
• Therefore, it is very essential to set such liability in a very accurate manner. Punishing a
wrongdoer is important, but the more important thing is that he is punished for only his
acts and none other. If a person has committed sexual harassment, but he is being
punished for rape, this is injustice. This person might be a monster in the eyes of society
for committing sexual harassment, but still he has not committed rape and thus getting
punished for the latter could not be called justice.
• The fact that the Acts and Codes of our country provides specific punishments for
different wrongs clearly indicates their aim to punish a person to the extent of his wrong
acts and not further. And as it has been discussed above, the proper analysis of the chain
of causation could be of very much help in determining the exact liability of the
wrongdoer. Therefore, the chain of causation needs to be broken for proving innocence.