Tort Problem Question Re: novus actus interveniens

jacknife

Hi,

Just looking at a tort problem question and I'm having difficulty deciding on this part.

A couple are driving on a country road on a dark evening maintaining a safe distance behind the car in front, suddenly the car in front pulls into the side of the road outside their house without indicating, the couple slow down and are suddenly hit from behind by Mary driving a jeep, the couple sustain whiplash injuries and there is considerable damage to their car.

The person in the car who pulled in on the side of the road, after seeing the accident goes inside their house.

Mary has admitted liability, advise Mary.

I think Mary could get away with being negligent, she hit the couple in the car so she was liable for that, but i think the car that pulled into the side of the road without indicating is an novus actus interveniens, it breaks the chain of causation

Or am i wrong in my reasoning by saying that the car that pulled in is an novus actus interveniens and that this is a curve ball

endacl

Mary had a responsibility to be aware that the unexpected can and often does happen on the road. As a consequence, she had a responsibility to maintain a safe stopping distance at all times. The reason for maintaining a safe stopping distance is to avoid the circumstances you outlined. Mary is liable.

My advice to Mary? Say nothing. Let the insurance companies argue it out!

Kristopherus

So the driver of the first car has no case to answer?????

hullaballoo

That does not constitute a novus actus. There are two separate acts of negligence in sequence but the act that you are purporting to set out as being a novus actus occurs before Mary's negligent act.

jacknife

hullaballoo wrote: »

That does not constitute a novus actus. There are two separate acts of negligence in sequence but the act that you are purporting to set out as being a novus actus occurs before Mary's negligent act.

to clarify a novus actus occurs after the negligent act

hullaballoo

jacknife wrote: »

to clarify a novus actus occurs after the negligent act

I'm sorry but I don't really understand this sentence. Are you asking me a question? In order to be a novus actus interveniens, the act couldn't possible occur earlier in time than the act of negligence you are seeking to defend with it.

hullaballoo

Kristopherus wrote: »

So the driver of the first car has no case to answer?????

In reality, Mary would join the other driver as a third party at a minimum. The Plaintiff may also join as a co-defendant.

jacknife

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't really understand this sentence. Are you asking me a question? In order to be a novus actus interveniens, the act couldn't possible occur earlier in time than the act of negligence you are seeking to defend with it.

sorry for not being clear, thanks you clarified my query

jacknife

Just thinking, if the plaintiffs added the car that suddenly pulled in to the proceedings, would that diminish Mary's liability or if they did not add the car driver would that also diminish Mary's liability, as even though Mary had a duty of care to other road users, the car that pulled in was a unforeseeable act and But For that incident Mary would not have crashed into the plaintiff

hullaballoo

The way it works is that the damages are awarded in favour of the Plaintiff to a certain amount, say for example, a whiplash injury that resolves after 6 months gives rise to total damages (inc. special damages etc.) of €20,000. If Mary is the only defendant, then she is liable for €20,000. If there is another defendant, even if the judge apportions liability 80:20 Mary:other driver, both defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay €20,000.

However, as above, the judge may apportion liability on the basis of the level of fault after all of the facts are set out and tested. Ultimately, that may mean Mary, or rather, her insurers, will pay €16,000 and the other party's insurers pay €4,000 but that is what is called a 3rd party issue. The Plaintiff has to be paid the €20,000 and it is up to the defendants to sort out the rest themselves.

cobhguy28

jacknife wrote: »

Just thinking, if the plaintiffs added the car that suddenly pulled in to the proceedings, would that diminish Mary's liability or if they did not add the car driver would that also diminish Mary's liability, as even though Mary had a duty of care to other road users, the car that pulled in was a unforeseeable act and But For that incident Mary would not have crashed into the plaintiff

Here the other car that pulled in would not be an unforeseeable act. One of the most basic rules of the road is to leave enough space incase of an emergency stop.

jacknife

hullaballoo wrote: »

The way it works is that the damages are awarded in favour of the Plaintiff to a certain amount, say for example, a whiplash injury that resolves after 6 months gives rise to total damages (inc. special damages etc.) of €20,000. If Mary is the only defendant, then she is liable for €20,000. If there is another defendant, even if the judge apportions liability 80:20 Mary:other driver, both defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay €20,000.

However, as above, the judge may apportion liability on the basis of the level of fault after all of the facts are set out and tested. Ultimately, that may mean Mary, or rather, her insurers, will pay €16,000 and the other party's insurers pay €4,000 but that is what is called a 3rd party issue. The Plaintiff has to be paid the €20,000 and it is up to the defendants to sort out the rest themselves.

Thanks for the detailed reply, therefore the plaintiff does not have to add the car driver to the proceedings, the judge could order Mary/insurers pay 100% of the damages, so it would be less complicated by not adding the 3rd party just sue Mary and am I correct in saying Mary could counter sue the car driver

brian_t

jacknife wrote: »

suddenly the car in front pulls into the side of the road outside their house without indicating,

Did the first car not brake.

Should the couple in the second car not have braked in reaction to the first cars brake lights even if the first car did not indicate - and therefore the third car brake in response to the first two cars braking.

Victor

brian_t wrote: »

Did the first car not brake.

Should the couple in the second car not have braked in reaction to the first cars brake lights even if the first car did not indicate - and therefore the third car brake in response to the first two cars braking.

We have nothing that says otherwise.

Mary screwed up - didn't see two vehicles braking in front of her / leave enough space to brake.

MarkAnthony

Mary is in terrible trouble, she's driving a jeep.

4ensic15

jacknife wrote: »

Hi,


Mary has admitted liability, advise Mary.

I think Mary could get away with being negligent, she hit the couple in the car so she was liable for that, but i think the car that pulled into the side of the road without indicating is an novus actus interveniens, it breaks the chain of causation

Or am i wrong in my reasoning by saying that the car that pulled in is an novus actus interveniens and that this is a curve ball

The damage was caused by Mary's failure to slow down in time. There was no Novus Actus Interveniens between Mary's negligence and the damage caused to the victims. Her only possible recourse is to try and establish contributory negligence on the part of the leading car. Given that the middle car could have slowed anyway irrespective of the activities of the leading car Mary's duty was to slow down any time the car in front of her slowed down. Mary would be saying that if the car in front had indicated she would have slowed down, however the middle car slowed down notwithstanding that the leading card did not indicate so why didn't Mary?
The only reason she didn't was because she was negligent.
The leading driver may have been negligent but Mary's driving was a Novus Actus Interveniens relieving the leading driver of responsibility for the damage.
How things would work out in a court case is another matter. Most of these cases involve horse trading between the insurance companies but it is most likely that Mary's insurer would be paying 100% of the bill.

NUTLEY BOY

The concept of novus actus is that the chain of causation has been broken by a new and intervening act intermediate between the original act of negligence and the claimed consequences.

Look at the case of OWNERS OF DREDGER " LIESBOSCH ' v OWNERS OF s.s. " EDISON " (1933). Two vessels had a collision. One party was impecunious and could not replace their vessel quickly. They incurred large consequential losses and claimed for those. It was held that the impecuniosity was a new and intervening cause that did not flow directly from the act of negligence thus breaking the causal chain or flow of responsibility.

That case is now disapproved of on certain grounds but that does not matter for present purposes. It illustrates the principle well enough.

Here is a link to the case http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1933/2.html

As far as OP's theoretical case goes I cannot see novus actus being argued on those facts.

Mary, on the facts, will be presumed to be negligent in her driving and be liable to the car she struck.

If Mary considers that the first car to have braked (i.e. the vehicle in front of the one she hit) contributed to causing the accident she can proceed against that driver by way of third party notice and claim indemnity and contribution from that party. On the facts, that would look to be a punitive expedition.

P.S. on looking back at wording of original question. For clarity, there would not appear to be a break in the chain of causation between Mary's negligence and the damage caused to the vehicle in front of her. The liability of the first car to brake would be a separate issue that could be resolved by the third party procedure.