Actus Novus Interveniens Cases

Summary

Actus novus interveniens refers to an event that breaks the chain of causation, potentially absolving a defendant from liability. Notable cases include R v Smith (1959), where the initial wound was deemed the primary cause of death despite improper medical treatment, and R v Jordan (1956), where palpably wrong medical treatment broke the causation chain. In R v Cheshire (1991), negligent medical treatment did not break the chain unless it was independent and potent in causing death. The eggshell skull principle holds defendants liable for greater harm due to pre-existing conditions. Volenti non fit injuria argues that a person who voluntarily accepts risk cannot claim damages.

Full Conversation

Defend Mr eghosa
It seems you are seeking information on how to defend Mr. Eghosa using the concept of "actus novus interveniens."
Could you please provide the jurisdiction where this case is taking place? This will help in giving you specific legal precedents and advice.
Mr Obinna Iwuchukwu is a first-class graduate of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Benin. However, seven years after graduating from the prestigious institute summa cum laude, he was still left without a job. This was largely due to a leg defect he had suffered since childhood. All the reputable companies in Benin rejected his job applications as they had no interest in employing someone with a physical disability no matter the level of academic excellence. Eventually, luck shone on him as he was called for an interview by Joel Construction Ltd (a thriving construction company). At the interview centre, the HR manager screamed at the sight of him, informing him that the company had a policy of not hiring people with any form of disability. Obinna pleaded with the interviewer, stating how badly he needed the job. The HR manager, having pity on him, gave him the job orally stating that if anything happened to him in the course of his employment, the company wouldn't be liable as he was already of a frail body. It was also categorically stated in the Contract of Employment thus, "The management shall not be liable for any death or personal injuries caused by any act, negligence, careless, reckless or omission by the employee, servants, agents whomsoever. Six months after resuming work as a site engineer, Obinna was hit on site by a crane manned by Eghosa, a crane driver under the employment of Joel Construction Ltd. The said Mr Eghosa had a penchant for causing trouble and being extremely careless in the workplace, but this had been ignored by his employers. Obinna was immediately rushed to the Samuel Crowther Orthopaedic hospital- where his legs are amputated In order to meet up with the medical expenses, Mr Obinna through his mother approached Joel Construction Ltd for financial help. The company declined, reminding him that there was an exemption clause in the Contract of Employment that expunged the company from any liability to him as regards negligent acts of their employees. He was also reminded that he was warned that the job was for hale and hearty men, but still insisted on getting the job despite his defects. He was then advised to seek compensation from Mr Eghosa. Mr Eghosa insisted that Obinna suffered an injury due to his frail nature as his act was only minimal. He (Eghosa) further stated that the damage to Obinna would not have amounted to such a serious matter if the act was done to a fully normal person. In annoyance, Mr Obinna has brought an action against Joel Construction Ltd and Samuel Crowther Orthopaedic Hospital, claiming damages in tort and breach of his fundamental human rights. Both parties have exchanged pleadings and the court has adjourned for filing and arguing of final addresses. *.Whether Eghosa an employee of Joel Construction Company can be held liable for Obinna's injury under the eggshell skull principle?
The "eggshell skull" principle, also known as the "thin skull" rule, states that a defendant must take their victim as they find them. This means that if a person with a pre-existing condition suffers greater harm than an average person would have, the defendant is still fully liable for the damages.
- Eghosa can be held liable despite Obinna's pre-existing condition.
- The company may also be vicariously liable for Eghosa's actions.
Is there any specific aspect of the case you'd like more information on?
Defend Eghosa using volenti non fit injuria
To defend Eghosa using the principle of "volenti non fit injuria," which means "to a willing person, no harm is done," you could argue the following points:
- Obinna voluntarily accepted the employment knowing the risks involved.
- The employment contract explicitly stated that the company would not be liable for any injuries.
Would you like more detailed information on how to present these arguments effectively?
More explanation
To present a defense for Eghosa using "volenti non fit injuria" effectively, consider the following points:
- Voluntary Acceptance of Risk: Emphasize that Obinna willingly accepted the job, fully aware of the inherent risks and his physical condition.
- Contractual Agreement: Highlight that the employment contract explicitly stated the company would not be liable for any injuries, suggesting Obinna accepted these terms knowingly.
- Explicit Warning: Note that Obinna was explicitly warned about the job's demands and potential risks due to his frail body.
Would you like more details on any of these points or another aspect of the defense?