On the other hand, his unreasonable conduct was a novus actus interveniens that led to the chain of causation being broken. It is demonstrated in the case of McKew v Holland, that the claimant had taken a risk that could not be foreseen, and the defendant was not held liable for the injury of his ankle. Lord Reid defined that an injured person should act reasonably and carefully in his recovery. It could be reasoned that Mike was advised to go home, and rest yet, acted unreasonably.

Under the Law reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 section 1, it is stated that “where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable shall be reduced.”

In relation to the case in question, Mike contributed to his injuries as he failed to take care of his safety due to falling off the bike; severely injured his liver. Although, he was sent home to take rest, he was heedless. Thus, in order to determine contributory negligence, it is required by the defendant to demonstrate that the claimant failed to take safety precautions and the failure to take care was a contributory cause of the injuries suffered. It is illustrated by Bucknill J, “when one is considering the question of contributory negligence, it is not necessary to show that the negligence constituted a breach of duty to the Defendant. It is sufficient to show lack of reasonable care by the Plaintiff for his own safety.” Furthermore, Lord Denning stated, “a person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent man…” Thus, Wally could dispute that Mike failed to take safety precautions, and the failure to take care was a contributory cause of the injuries suffered.

As his liver was already in a terrible condition due to excessive drinking, this also imposes a contributing negligence on him. Mike’s excessive drinking has deteriorated the condition of his liver, although falling off the bike has made a severe impact on the overall condition of his liver. Hence, Mike is contributory negligent due to excessive drinking in reducing the probability of his life beyond the age of 30.

Therefore, it is sufficient to prove that Wally has been negligent towards Mike due to the standard of duty of care required by him. On the balance of likelihoods, the negligence of the pub’s stairs caused the injuries that had materially contributed to Mike’s injuries; thus, causation is established. Additionally, the miscond