The best way to characterise the law is a series of simple principles upon which nearly a thousand years of precedent, law changes and complexities have been added to ensure the legal system is fit for purpose in the modern age.

The consequence of this is that solicitors will often be required to cite precedents from years, decades and sometimes entire centuries ago.

A lot of aspects of contract law go back to a case involving a fraudulent Smoke Ball advertising campaign in 1892, the duty of care in negligence case to a 1932 case involving a snail, and the limits of land ownership to a case between an aerial photographer and the founder of Granada Television.

However, one of the most important cases when it comes to establishing the chain of causation in cases where harm has been caused by one person against another was Scott V Shepherd from 1773.

In keeping with the theme of strange, relatively small cases setting off a change of events with a big impact, it involves a flying squib.

Scott V Shepherd

A squib is a small explosive firework that in 1773 looked like a small tube of dynamite. They are still seen and used today, typically for mining purposes and as part of special effects.

However, like caps, poppers and whipper snappers, they could also be used to cause mischief, as they make a lot of noise and cause a startled reaction for anyone who is caught by surprise by the hiss and subsequent loud bang.

This led to the unfortunate events of 28th October 1770, where Master Shepherd, a child, threw a squib into a crowded covered marketplace looking to cause trouble.

The hissing explosive landed on the stall of a gingerbread maker by the name of Mr Willis, who reflexly threw it across the marketplace in a random direction. It landed on the stand of Mr Ryal. 

He also threw it across the market, where it hit the face of Mr Scott, exploded and took out one of his eyes.

The question for the court was about who caused the injury. Mr Scott believed it was Master Shepherd, who threw the firework in the first place, negligent of the consequences.

On the other hand, Master Shepherd claimed that he was only responsible for the first throw, which unintentionally landed at Mr Willis, whose throw to Mr Ryal was his responsibility and likewise Mr Ryal’s throw his responsibility.

In legal terms, Master Shepherd’s argument was one of novus actus interveniens (new intervening act); Mr Willis’ throw broke the chain of causation and made Master Shepherd no longer responsible for what came next.

Chief Justice De Grey disagreed, claiming that the original unlawful act was the initial cause, and Mr Willis and Mr Ryal were simply acting out of self-preservation and were justified in doing so.

Whilst their hands touched it last, the first thrower held the blame for all of the actions that came from it.

This established the potential for a chain of causation or the idea that someone can be responsible for the consequences of actions their unlawful act did not necessarily cause.

This precedent led to the incredibly controversial case of Baker v Willoughby in 1970, where the defendant was held to be liable not only for injuring the plaintiff’s leg following a car accident but an otherwise unrelated shooting incident where the same leg was ultimately amputated.