## Facts

- The claimant, McKew, suffered a leg injury while at work, caused by the defendant employer's negligence.
- The injury resulted in the claimant's leg being weakened.
- Subsequently, the claimant attempted to descend a steep staircase without a handrail.
- While descending, his injured leg gave way, leading him to fall and suffer a broken ankle.
- The defendant accepted liability for the initial workplace injury but disputed liability for the subsequent ankle fracture.
- The core question was whether the employer was also responsible for the second injury sustained during the staircase incident.

## Issues

1. Whether the claimant’s actions in descending a steep staircase without a handrail, knowing of his weakened leg, constituted a novus actus interveniens.
2. Whether the defendant’s original negligence extended to liability for the subsequent injury (the broken ankle).
3. Whether the reasonableness of the claimant’s conduct, rather than mere foreseeability of accident, is the test for breaking the chain of causation.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the claimant’s conduct in descending the steep stairs without a handrail, despite knowing his leg was weakened, was unreasonable.
- The claimant’s unreasonable act was determined to be a novus actus interveniens that severed the causal chain from the original negligence.
- The employer was held not liable for the subsequent injury (broken ankle) as the claimant's actions broke the link to the initial negligent act.
- The court emphasised that the initial injury contributed to the claimant's vulnerability but was not the direct cause of the second accident.

## Legal Principles

- The doctrine of novus actus interveniens provides that an independent and unreasonable act by the claimant can break the causal chain in negligence.
- Liability in negligence is limited if a subsequent injury results from the claimant’s own unreasonable actions, not merely foreseeability.
- The test for a novus actus interveniens is the reasonableness of the claimant’s conduct in the circumstances, not solely whether further injury was foreseeable.
- A claimant has a duty to act with reasonable care and not to expose themselves to unnecessary risk after an injury.

## Conclusion

The decision in McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd clarifies that a claimant’s unreasonable act following an initial injury can break the causal chain, absolving the original tortfeasor from liability for subsequent injury. The House of Lords established that foreseeability alone is not enough; the claimant's conduct must be reasonable to maintain the chain of causation in negligence claims.


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