This site uses cookies.

February 2012 - PI Practitioner

The rescue as novus actus interveniens - liability of the original tortfeasor

• Knightly v Johns & Ors [1982] 1 WLR 349 - a policeman (D3) was called to the scene of an accident in a tunnel, which had been caused by negligent driving of D1. He realised that he had not closed the mouth of the tunnel and sent two colleagues (one of them C) back on motorbikes to do so. They rode on the wrong side of the road around a blind bend and were hit by a car being driven by D2. C sued Ds 1 - 3 and the Chief Constable (D4).

HELD - D1 and D2 were not liable. D1's driving had been negligent but there was a break in the chain of causation between that negligence and the injury to C. That break was D3 having sent C and his colleague back to close the mouth of the tunnel.

• In McFarlane v EE Caledonia [1994] 2 All ER 1 - Stuart-Smith LJ gave judgment in a case concerning psychiatric injury to people on rescue boats who observed victims of the Piper Alpha disaster meet their death. At 10 - 11 he held that -
'A rescuer is entitled to put his own safety at risk, but not that of others, unless they too consent to be part of the rescue... If [the captain of the rescue vessel] had negligently and in breach of his duty taken the vessel into a position of danger where those on board were injured or reasonably feared injury this would be a novus actus interveniens and not something for which the defendants would be liable.
...A reasonable man in the position of the defendant should foresee that if his negligence caused such a catastrophic emergency, those in charge of rescue vessels may not be able to judge to a nicety exactly how near it is safe to bring their vessels.'


According to Clerk & Lindsell (20th Edn.) at 8-32, 'An error of judgment in organising an emergency rescue will rarely amount the negligence'.

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.