References:  AC 956
Coram: Lord Sumner
Lord Sumner said: ‘In general, even though A is in fault, he is not responsible for injury to C which B, a stranger to him, deliberately chooses to do. Though A may have given the occasion for B’s mischievous activity, B then becomes a new and independent cause.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Stansbie-v- Troman CA ( 2 KB 48)
A decorator working alone in a house went out to buy wallpaper and left the front door unlocked. He was held liable for the loss caused by a thief who entered while he was away. For the purpose of attributing liability to the thief (e.g. in a . .
- Cited – Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd -v- National Rivers Authority HL (Gazette 26-Feb-98, Times 09-Feb-98, Gazette 25-Mar-98, House of Lords, Bailii,  2 WLR 350,  UKHL 5,  2 AC 22,  1 All ER 481)
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .