Breaking the chain (or novus actus interveniens, literally new intervening act) refers in English law to the idea that causal connections are deemed to finish.
But where the sequence of events leading to the loss and damage comprises more than one cause, the process of separating and attributing potential or actual liability is more complicated.
Where there are several potential causes of harm, some of which are tortious and some of which are natural, the basic rule is that the claimant can succeed only if he or she proves on the balance of probabilities that the loss and damage is attributable to the tort.
After the collision but before crossing the Atlantic, the Heimgar was given a certificate of seaworthiness, authorising her to be continued in her present class without fresh record of survey, subject to permanent repairs at the owner's convenience.
While crossing the Atlantic, the Heimgar encountered heavy weather and sustained such serious damage as to become unseaworthy and to require immediate dry docking.
Ten of the fifty days in dry dock were allocated to the repair of the collision damage and the question for the House of Lords was whether the owners of the Carslogie were liable for that ten-day loss of earning capacity.
Decisions are not always clear-cut where the loss or damage flowing from an initial tort is overwhelmed by a more serious injury caused by: In Baker v Willoughby[4] the defendant negligently injured the claimant's leg in a car accident.
The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable to pay full compensation for the injury he had caused, based on the claimant's losses beyond the time when his leg was amputated.
This decision was criticised in Jobling v Associated Dairies[5] where the claimant's employer negligently caused a slipped disk which reduced his earning capacity by half.
In Heil v Rankin[6] a specially constituted Court of Appeal resolved eight test cases by creating a formula for increasing the measure of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.
The Heil case simply reinforces the tort system for the award of damages (in January 1996 the Law Commission had published a Consultation Paper (No.
The cumulative effect of both incidents left him suffering from post traumatic stress disorder which ultimately became a permanent disability.
Indeed, Lord Wilberforce was also radical in a minority judgment by reversing the normal burden of proof once a prima facie case of increased risk was made out, i.e. it was then for the employer to show that the failure to provide showers did not cause the disease.
Thus, albeit by strained logic, the law was asserted to be that the claimant has the burden of proof to show that the alleged breach of duty materially increased the risk of injury.
Albeit that it was expressly stated as a limited exception to the general rule of causation, it could have real impact in all cases of industrial disease.