Baker v Willoughby

Ratio Decidendi

Facts

Baker injured his left leg in a road accident caused by Willoughby's negligence. Before the trial, Baker was shot in the same leg during an armed robbery and the leg was amputated. Willoughby argued his liability should be limited to the period before the shooting.

Judgment Summary

The House of Lords held that Willoughby remained liable in full for the ongoing disability caused by the original road accident, notwithstanding the later amputation of the same leg after the armed robbery. The subsequent shooting did not obliterate or reduce the loss flowing from the first injury; the claimant continued to suffer the consequences of the road accident even after the leg was lost. Lord Reid explained that a claimant is compensated not for the physical injury as such but for the loss and disability it causes, and that loss continued despite the supervening event. To limit the first tortfeasor's liability to the period before the shooting would leave the claimant under-compensated, because the second event could only be liable for the additional loss it caused, not for the disability the first accident had already produced. The reasoning was later confined by Jobling v Associated Dairies, which distinguished non-tortious supervening events (the ordinary vicissitudes of life).

Key Quotes

Subsequent Treatment