Knightley v Johns

An original tortfeasor remains liable for harm arising from rescue or emergency intervention where the relevant class of accident is a reasonably foreseeable and likely consequence of the danger created. The particular sequence need not have been predicted.

However, an intervening human act or omission may be a novus actus interveniens where, assessed by common sense, it is an extraordinary and negligent new cause rather than an expected response to the emergency. The nature of the intervention, its negligence, the pressures of the emergency, and the whole sequence of events are relevant.

Negligent failure by police to follow safety procedures and an order exposing officers to danger may therefore render the resulting injury too remote from the original motorist's negligence.

Knightley v Johns arose from a road accident in the Queensway Tunnel. Mr Johns negligently overturned his car, creating an emergency. A police inspector failed to close the tunnel and instructed the claimant police constable and another officer to travel against traffic to do so. The claimant was injured when an oncoming car collided with his motor cycle.

The deputy judge held Mr Johns liable but dismissed the claims against the inspector and the Chief Constable. Mr Johns appealed. The claimant served a cross-notice challenging the dismissal of his claims against the police defendants. The central issue was whether the police intervention was a concurrent consequence of Mr Johns's negligence or a new cause breaking the chain of causation.

1. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed Mr Johns's appeal. It set aside the judgment against him because the claimant's injury was too remote from his negligence. The claimant's cross-notice succeeded: the Court set aside the judgment for the Chief Constable and Inspector Sommerville, and entered judgment for the claimant against them, with damages to be assessed if not agreed.

2. Stephenson LJ, with whom Dunn LJ and Sir David Cairns agreed, held that the applicable inquiry was one of reasonable foreseeability and remoteness. An original wrongdoer is ordinarily responsible for rescue-related injury where intervention and the relevant class of accident are natural, probable and reasonably foreseeable consequences of the danger created. The particular accident need not itself have been foreseeable. Conduct in an emergency may include mistakes and courageous action without breaking causation.

3. That principle did not make Mr Johns liable on these facts. The inspector's negligent failure to close the tunnel, following confusion about the emergency, and his order requiring the officers to remedy that failure by a dangerous wrong-way journey were an extraordinary departure from the prescribed safety procedure. Taken with the preceding errors and omissions, the inspector's negligence was the real and new cause of the claimant's injury. The whole sequence was not reasonably foreseeable as a likely consequence of Mr Johns's accident.

4. The inspector was negligent in failing to close the tunnel and in ordering or allowing his subordinates to undertake the dangerous manoeuvre contrary to the Standing Orders. The claimant was not contributorily negligent. He acted quickly under the inspector's instruction and his decision about his position in the tunnel was made without time for deliberation. Sir David Cairns additionally observed that the claimant's compliance with the inspector's order could not break the causal chain between the inspector's negligence and the injury.

• Court of Appeal — In Knightley v Johns, [1982] 1 WLR 349, the Court allowed the first defendant's appeal, set aside the judgment against him, and entered judgment for the claimant against the Chief Constable and Inspector Sommerville.
• High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Birmingham District Registry — The deputy judge held Mr Johns liable to the claimant, but dismissed the claims against the Chief Constable and Inspector Sommerville.