McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Reid,Lord Hodson,Lord Guest,Viscount Dilhorne,Lord Upjohn |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] UKHL J1126-2 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Docket Number | No. 2. |
| Date | 26 November 1969 |
[1969] UKHL J1126-2
Lord Reid
Lord Hodson
Lord Guest
Viscount Dilhorne
Lord Upjohn
House of Lords
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause McKew (A.P.) against Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Limited, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Thursday the 9th as on Monday the 13th, days of October last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Abraham McKew (Assisted Person), residing at 26 Succoth Street, Glasgow, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutors set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, two Interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland (Lord Robertson) of the 13th of July 1967 and the 6th of October 1967 respectively, and also two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session there of the Second Division of the 30th of September 1968 and the 15th of October 1968 respectively, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutors, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Interlocutors of the 13th day of July 1967, the 6th day of October 1967, the 30th day of September 1968 and the 15th day of October 1968, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same are hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellant do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments, provided that such Order shall not be enforced without a further Order of this House.
My Lords,
The Appellant sustained in the course of his employment trivial injuries which were admittedly caused by the fault of the Respondents. His back and hips were badly strained, he could not bend, and on several occasions his left leg suddenly "went away from" him. I take this to mean that for a short time he lost control of his leg and it became numb. He would have recovered fully from his injuries in a week or two but for a second accident in which he suffered a severe fracture of his ankle. The question in this case is whether the Respondents are liable for the damage caused by this second accident. If they are so liable then damages have been agreed at £4,915: if they are not so liable then damages are agreed at £200, the sum awarded in the Court of Session.
Some days after the first accident the Appellant was offered the tenancy of a flat in Succoth Street, Glasgow. He went to inspect it accompanied by his wife and child and a brother-in-law. The flat is approached by a steep stair between two walls and there was no handrail. When they left the flat the Appellant sought to descend the stair with his child in advance of his wife and brother-in-law. The only reliable evidence of what then happened is that of the Appellant and it is far from clear. I think it best to quote this evidence. The Appellant first said:
"A.—Well, we came out of the house and I was at the top of the stairs with my daughter and I had her by the hand and I think it was my brother-in-law closed the door and he was holding it while my wife was locking it and I lifted my right foot to go down the stairs and as I lifted my right foot this left leg just seemed to vanish under me and I threw my daughter back in case I would take her down with me; I found myself going and I couldn't stop and the only thing I could do was, instead of toppling down head first, I threw myself and I landed on my right—even when I landed on my feet my left went from me, but it was mostly my right I landed on."
Then later he said:
"I put my right leg down to go and as I put it down my left leg just went and I threw my daughter back and instead of falling I made to jump.
Q.—And did you land on your feet?
A.—Yes. I ended up sitting down but I was on my feet as I hit the ground.
Q.—Did you jump about 12 feet from the top of the stair down to the next landing?
A.—Well, I jumped ten steps. …"
And finally he said:
"I was actually falling, I was completely falling and I had to try and stop myself. My right leg was down then and I threw myself so that I could land in a standing position instead of falling over and falling down and breaking my neck.
Q.—Did you project yourself into the air with your right foot?
A.—From the wall and part of my right foot, I kind of pushed myself from the wall on the left.
Q.—Did you not think of falling backwards, just sitting down?
A.—That was impossible because I was in flight, as a matter of fact, I couldn't come back, not unless I reversed my body, and I wasn't doing that."
The Appellant's case is that this second accident was caused by the weakness of his left leg which in turn had been caused by the first accident. The main argument for the Respondents is that the second accident was not the direct or natural and probable or foreseeable result of their fault in causing the first accident.
In my view the law is clear. If a man is injured in such a way that his leg may give way at any moment he must act reasonably and carefully. It is quite possible that in spite of all reasonable care his leg may give way in circumstances such that as a result he sustains further injury. Then that second injury was caused by his disability which in turn was caused by the defender's fault. But if the injured man acts unreasonably he cannot hold the defender liable for injury caused by his own unreasonable conduct. His unreasonable conduct is novus actus interveniens. The chain of causation has been broken and what follows must be regarded as caused by his own conduct and not by the defender's fault or the disability caused by it. Or one may say that unreasonable conduct of the pursuer and what follows from it is not the natural and probable result of the original fault of the defender or of the ensuing disability. I do not think that foreseeability comes into this. A defender is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd
...case, which has been cogently presented by Dominic Nolan QC, has been the decision of the House of Lords in McKew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621. As a result of an actionable injury at work the pursuer had developed an intermittent weakness of the left ......
-
Sabri-Tabrizi v Lothian Health Board
...the second pregnancy excluded from probation. Winnik v Dick 1984 SLT 185 applied. McKew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) LtdSC1970 SC (HL) 20followed. June Sabri-Tabrizi brought an action against Lothian Health Board concluding for damages in respect of alleged negligence in perf......
-
Oswald France Claimant v The Attorney Genreal of Antigua and Barbuda Director of Public Works Defendants [ECSC]
...it constituted a novus actus intervenes. For an application of this legal principle Ms. Nelson relied on the case of Mc Kew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621, a decision of the House of Lords. The plaintiff had suffered an injured leg owing to the defendan......
- Ngan Siong Hing v RHB Bank Bhd
-
AN ACCOUNT OF ACCOUNTS
...[1952] AC 292; Nichols v Marsland(1876) 2 Ex D 1; Scott v Shepherd(1773) 3 Wils KB 40; (1773) 95 ER 525; McKew v Holland & Hannan Ltd[1970] SC(HL) 20; [1969] 3 All ER 1621; Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd[1982] AC 794; King v Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust[2002] EWCA Civ 953. 116 Edwin Peel, T......
-
CONTRACT DAMAGES AND THE PROMISEE'S ROLE IN ITS OWN LOSS.
...below Part III(C). (72) See, eg, below Part IV(B). (73) In tort, see, eg, McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621 ('McKew'); Caterson v Commissioner for Railways (1973) 128 CLR 99, 110-12 (Gibbs J) ('Caterson'); Corr (n 62) 904-5 [17] (Lord Bingham). S......
-
Risk and Remoteness of Damage in Negligence
...as sufficiently autonomous to remove the risk from the defendant inrelation to the further harm, see McKew vHolland, Hannen & Cubitts [1969] 3 All ER 1621,discussed at n 99 below.88 Lord vPacific Steam Navigation Co Ltd,The Oropesa [1943] P 32. See also The City of Lincoln(1889) 15 PD 15. S......