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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal