Scott v Shepherd
1. Case Name
Scott v Shepherd (1773) 2 Wm Bl 892; 95 ER 891
2. Court
Court: Court of King’s Bench, England
3. Facts of the Case
The defendant, Shepherd, threw a lit squib (firework) into a crowded market.
The squib landed near the first person (A), who, in panic, threw it away to avoid injury.
The squib then hit a second person (B), who also threw it away.
Finally, it exploded near the plaintiff, Scott, causing injury to him.
Scott sued Shepherd for trespass (direct personal injury).
Key Points:
The injury was indirect, as it passed through multiple people.
The defense argued that the intervening acts of others broke the chain of causation.
4. Legal Issue
Can the defendant be held liable for an injury that occurred indirectly through the actions of third parties?
Specifically, whether the acts of the intervening persons break the chain of liability.
5. Judgment
Held: The defendant, Shepherd, was liable.
The court ruled that the acts of the other persons who threw the squib were involuntary reactions to the initial wrongful act.
Since Shepherd set the chain of events in motion, he was responsible for the injury.
Key Principle:
"If a wrongful act sets in motion a chain of events causing injury, the original wrongdoer is liable, even if there are intervening reactions by others, provided those reactions are natural and foreseeable."
6. Legal Principle / Ratio Decidendi
Directness / Causation in Tort:
Liability can extend to injuries that are directly caused by the wrongful act, even if they pass through other intermediaries.
Foreseeable Reactions:
Acts of third parties do not break the chain of causation if they are natural and foreseeable reactions to the original act.
Trespass to Person:
In torts like trespass, the focus is on whether the defendant’s act directly led to the injury, not on whether there were intervening acts.
7. Significance of the Case
Doctrine of Directness:
Established that liability can include injuries caused indirectly through foreseeable reactions.
Causation in Tort Law:
Introduced the concept that intervening acts of others do not absolve the wrongdoer if they were natural consequences of the wrongful act.
Trespass and Negligence:
Although originally a trespass case, it laid the foundation for causation principles in negligence.
8. Modern Relevance / Related Cases
R v. Dear (1996) – Modern criminal law case following principles of directness and causation.
Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969) – Discusses chain of causation in negligence, building on the principle of foreseeability.
9. Conclusion
Scott v Shepherd (1773) established:
A person who commits a wrongful act is liable for all direct consequences, even if they occur through intermediary actions.
The test for liability includes:
Directness of the act
Foreseeability of reactions
Causation linking act to injury
It remains a landmark case on causation in tort law and is frequently cited in cases involving indirect injuries.
RELATED Blog
0 comments