R v Holland (1841) is a general-principle English criminal law decision as to novus actus interveniens — breaking the chain of causation.
It confirmed the rarity of scenarios that will break the chain when serious, intentional bodily harm is carried out.
The victim refused medical treatment for the gangrene-infected wound initially.
Based on surviving descriptions of the wound, it is likely that amputation would have been necessary even with modern medical technology.
Holland tried using, as a defense, that the victim would have survived with better treatment and thus murder was not an appropriate charge.