NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS

About the author: Aaryan Wadhawan is a law enthusiast and a student from UPES Dehradun.

INTRODUCTION- Novus Actus Interveniens is a legal maxim that means “an act that interferes and changes the course of action of the outcome. Simply means, a new action coming in between. The intervening act which alters the course of events and the outcome must be unplanned, it should not be foreseeable and the act should not be inevitable in nature. If the intervening act is pre-meditated agenda, the defense of Novus Actus Interveniens stands void and would not reduce the liability imposed on the defendant.

TEST OF ISOLATION- According to the test of isolation, during the commission of an illegal act, if a violation of another human or a 3 rd party (which has no relation with the illegal activity being committed by the defendant) occurs, which leads to further consequences, the defendant will not be held responsible for the furtherance of the act and would not be held liable in the court of law.

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING- Novus Actus Interveniens is a Latin term which means a “New intervening act”. J. Neethling, a famous author of the 20th century talks about Novus Actus Interveniens in his Law of Dilect. He states that Novus Actus is “an individual occurrence that either induced or led to the outcome involved after the wrongdoer’s act was ended”. For an act to be considered under Novus Actus, it should not be foreseeable in nature and should take place without the knowledge of the defendant who committed an act prior to the intervention by the 3 rd party. On the other hand, if the defendant’s act increases the chances and the probability of an intervention, the secondary act resulting in the furtherance of the outcome shall not be deemed as a Novus Actus intervention. This legal maxim is considered a strong defense in the court of law which can even free the defendant/the original wrongdoer from his actions. However, many factors like reasonability, justice, and equality are taken into consideration.

DETERMINANTS OF NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS- In order to decide which acts fall under the category of this maxim, we shall move further by understanding the determinants.

1. For the application of Novus Actus, the intervention of 3 rd party shall be solely out of their own will. The defendant should have no knowledge of the act and the furtherance caused by the 3rd party will be considered a voluntary action.
2. The intervening act should seem highly unlikely. There should be no relationship between the original act and the following act. The intervening act should be beyond the doubt a coincidence.
3. Novus Actus Interveniens are the acts that are independent. Meaning that the intervening act should be beyond the reasonable circumstances. An example of the same is a situation where the defendant has hit a pedestrian with his car. Lying unconscious with minor injuries, the plaintiff is hit by a lightning strike from the sky due to which, he suffers grave injuries and dies. In this scenario, the defendant will not be held liable for the death of the pedestrian as he did not die due to the accident but due to the lightning strike.

Novus Actus Interveniens (Examples)

 A and B are two strangers who are presently roaming in the same forest. A is a smoker. He drops a cigarette butt in the trees at the side of the forest. Immediately, B pours fuel into the trees. This sparks a fire (A is unaware of the fire). The question here arises if it is A’s deed that sparked the forest fire? The answer is no, A did not intend to burn the forest down, it was B’s act that triggered the fire. Here, B is not an instrument of A. A did not ask or recommend B to spill fuel on the cigarette burn. Doing so was an act of B’s own initiative. There was no partnership between them, no common intent. B would be liable as he purposely poured fuel over the cigarette butt which instigated the forest fire. Only B may be assigned to an aspect of mens rea. Another example to understand the same: A hits B which results in a loss of equilibrium for B. As a consequence, B stumbles and slams into a glass window. The window shatters. While A caused B to lose their balance, he is not deemed to have shattered the glass himself. B himself had no intention to break the glass but because of A’s action, he stumbled into the window till it shattered. Here, A can be held liable as he should have been able to foresee the consequences of his actions. However, the rupturing of the window glass is an accident and not a voluntary act.

Exceptions to Novus Actus Interveniens:

Law provides four exceptions to Novus Actus Interveniens:

1. When the defendant knowingly procures the intervening act.
2. When there is no complete responsibility for the interfering factor.
3. When the intervening act is such that it may be fairly expected to happen.
4. When the intervening act is a simple reflex or spontaneous action.

In the City of Lincoln [1], there was a collision between a steamer (the steamer’s owner is the plaintiff) and a barge (the barge’s owner is the defendant) after which the steering compass, maps, and other methods for guiding the ship were lost. The Captain of the barge wanted to search for a port to safeguard both the ship and the barge, however, due to the unavailability of the navigating instruments the ship suffered an accident. The plaintiff sued the defendant. The Court of Appeal held that the Caption made a fair decision and did not break the chain of causation.

In McKew v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd. [2] , the plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs as one of his legs unexpectedly became numb. In court, he argued that the injuries sustained by him were attributed to his bosses citing an earlier workplace accident they were responsible for. However, the House of Lords held that while it was probably unavoidable, the plaintiff’s own act of going the stairs without waiting for the support that was available broke the chain of causation between his fall and the initial workplace accident.

[1] The City of Lincoln (1816) 1 Stark 492

[2] McKew v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621 (HL), 8 KIR 921

Disclaimer: The author undertakes that the work submitted is an original creation of the author. The author has not previously submitted the article for the purpose of publication. Any similarity with previously published content is not intentional. The author shall be personally liable for any infringement of intellectual property of any person, organization, government or institution”