Knightley v Johns
A negligent act by a police officer, responding to an accident caused by the defendant, broke the chain of causation, so the original defendant was not liable for a further accident.
Facts
Mr Johns negligently crashed his car near the exit of a tunnel in Birmingham, blocking it. The police inspector in charge at the scene forgot to close the tunnel to traffic, and ordered Constable Knightley to ride his motorcycle back through the tunnel against the oncoming traffic, to close it. The constable was hit by an oncoming car. He sued Mr Johns, the inspector and others.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Johns was not liable for the constable's injury, because the inspector's negligent order broke the chain of causation. Stephenson LJ said that the question is whether the whole sequence of events was a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's negligence and a reasonably foreseeable result of it. Negligent conduct is more likely to break the chain of causation than conduct that is not negligent, and the inspector's mistakes were so serious that they were the real cause of the second accident. The inspector was liable.
Related cases on remoteness and intervening acts
- Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, [2008] 1 AC 884
- Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837
- Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082
- Lagden v O'Connor [2003] UKHL 64, [2004] 1 AC 1067
- Lamb v Camden London Borough Council [1981] QB 625
- McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621
- The Oropesa [1943] P 32
- Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (The Wagon Mound (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
