McKew v Holland & Hannen [1969] 3 All E.R. 1621
Facts
An employer’s negligence caused a worker an injury which left his leg liable to give way. Some days later, he attempted to descend a steep staircase without a handrail, with a young child nearby and without arranging adult assistance. His weakened leg gave way. He jumped towards the bottom of the stairs and suffered a serious ankle injury. He sought to include that later damage in his claim against the employer, arguing that the original injury had created the weakness which led to the accident. The dispute reached the House of Lords on appeal from Scotland.
Legal Issue
Did the worker’s decision to attempt the stairs without assistance break the chain of causation between the employer’s negligence and the later injury?
Held
The House of Lords held that the employer was not responsible for the later injury. The original negligence explained the worker’s physical weakness, but that did not settle legal responsibility for every subsequent accident. His decision to negotiate the steep, unprotected stairs without appropriate assistance was unreasonable in light of the condition he knew about. That intervening conduct broke the causal chain. The reasoning should not be reduced to criticism of the jump alone: an emergency response may be understandable once danger has arisen. The important conduct was placing himself in the hazardous situation despite his known vulnerability and the circumstances of the staircase.
⭐ Legal Principle
A claimant’s unreasonable intervening conduct may break the chain of causation between an initial injury and later damage. The assessment is contextual and distinguishes the decision to encounter a known danger from a reaction made in the emergency that follows.
Significance
McKew illustrates the limits of a purely chronological or but-for explanation of damage. The employer’s wrong was part of the history, but the claimant’s later conduct could still interrupt legal responsibility. It should be compared with reasonable attempts to cope with an injury, where the chain may remain intact. Contributory negligence and a complete break in causation are different outcomes; neither follows automatically merely because the claimant could have acted more carefully.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was but-for causation insufficient in McKew?
Without the original injury the worker might not have had a weakened leg, but that historical connection did not answer the separate question of responsibility for the later accident. The court treated his unreasonable decision to undertake the stairs without assistance as an intervening event breaking the chain.
Was the decision simply that jumping is unreasonable?
No. The circumstances which created the emergency were important. A person faced with a sudden fall may react imperfectly without that reaction becoming a new cause. The criticism concerned attempting the hazardous descent despite known weakness, not a general rule condemning every emergency movement or attempt to escape injury.
Does every careless act by an injured claimant break the chain?
No. The conduct must be assessed in its context and the court must decide its effect on responsibility for the later damage. Some conduct may leave causation intact or justify a contributory-negligence reduction. McKew illustrates a complete break on its particular facts, not an automatic consequence of claimant fault.