Scott v Shepherd (1773) 96 Eng. Rep. 525 (K.B.) — often called the “flying squib” case.
- Citations: (1773) 96 ER 525; (1773) 2 Wm Bl 892; 3 Wils KB 403
- Court: Court of King’s Bench (K.B.), England
- Areas of Law: Trespass to the person (battery), Causation, Intervening acts / novus actus interveniens
Scott v Shepherd is a landmark English torts case about causation and intervening acts. A man threw a lit firework (a “squib”) into a crowded market; others, to save themselves, instinctively tossed it away; it finally exploded and injured the claimant.
Key Facts: Scott v Shepherd
Defendant threw a lit squib into a crowded marketplace.
The squib landed near someone who, to avoid harm, threw it away; it was then picked up and thrown on again by another person.
The squib ultimately exploded near the claimant and injured him.
Question: was the defendant liable for the injury despite the intervening acts of third parties?
The Legal Issue
Whether the voluntary acts of bystanders (who threw the squib on to avoid harm) were novus actus interveniens that broke the causal chain, excusing the defendant.
Judgment & Reasoning in Scott v Shepherd
The court (majority: De Grey CJ, Nares J., and others) found the defendant liable. The bystanders’ acts were seen as involuntary or natural reactions to the danger the defendant created — they were not independent, voluntary, informed interventions breaking causation. The injury was therefore a direct consequence of the defendant’s wrongful act.
An actor who creates a dangerous situation can be liable for consequences even if third parties’ instinctive reactions contribute to the harm, provided those reactions are a natural and foreseeable result of the defendant’s act.
A novus actus interveniens will break the chain only if the intervening act is a free, informed, and voluntary act independent of the defendant’s conduct (i.e., not a predictable or forced reaction).
Blackstone J. dissented on technical grounds about directness/indirectness.
Significance
The case is frequently cited in tort and criminal causation discussions to illustrate when intervening acts do not break causation.
References:
- https://masonlec.org/site/files/2012/05/Priest_T1_Scott-v.-Shepherd.pdf
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/15541-sample.pdf
- https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2008/4.pdf
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/50343-sample.pdf?v=1709760202
- https://ipsaloquitur.com/tort-law/cases/scott-v-shepherd/
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW:
- Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority [1993]: Injury Claim in Australia
- Gala v Preston [1991]: Negligence, Intoxication, and Illegal Acts
- Miller v Miller [2011] HCA 9: Can You Sue After Breaking the Law?
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.