IMPACT OF NEGLIGENCE

In the law of negligence and damages the acts of both the claimant and the defendant take part in the case whether it’s both their faults or it’s once recklessness. In the normal cause of events, the defendant is liable if they owed a duty of care, breached that duty and cause a loss or damage.
In some cases a negligent defendant will not be liable for any loss or damage if the claimant acted unreasonably in the situation. In the case of McKew v Holland the defendant’s negligence caused an injury to the claimant’s leg that weakened it. When later attempting to go down a steep staircase without a handrail or assistance, the claimant broke his ankle in the same leg. It is possible that the disability ay produce a situation in which further injury is caused. In such case the second injury fits into the chain of causation. However if the person acts unreasonably, this behaviour is novus actus interveniens (new act intervening) then the chain of causation is broken and new injuries will be seen as caused by the claimants own conduct and not by the first negligence caused by the defendant.
However when the claimants response is not sufficiently unreasonable than the chain of causation is not broken. In the case of Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets (1969) the defendant negligence caused an injury to the claimant’s neck that needed of wearing a surgical collar. The claimant also wore bifocals and the collar inhibited the normal compensator movement of her head to maintain perfect vision. She fell down some steps which caused further injury. It was held that her difficulties in seeing with her usual spectacles were within the risk created by the original negligence.
Unlike McKew, Mrs Wieland was not behaving unreasonably in descending the steps and so the chain of causation was not broken. Similar, here the defendant creates a dangerous situation that