He tried various different employments some of which he had to discontinue because of his injury. In Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 the claimant suffered a leg injury (causing pain and stiffness) in a road traffic accident caused by the defendant's negligent driving. The claimant was later an innocent victim when shot in the same leg by some robbers and the leg was amputated. The complainant, Mr Baker, was a pedestrian who had been knocked down by the defendant driving a car in September 1964. Law of Tort – Negligence – Causation – Remoteness of Damage – Damages – Novus Actus Interveniens. He injured his back which caused him to reduce his earning capacity to 50% of what it was. multiple events and causation key cases Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 Jobling v Associated Diaries Ltd [1982] Jobling v Associated Diaries Ltd [1982] injured in an industrial accident and permanently disabled. In Jobling the spinal condition was This is because the decision in Baker seemingly conflicts with the House of Lords decision in Jobling v … Intervening acts: ... Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 4 67 *Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 79 4. In Baker v. Willoughby the defendant negligently injured the claimant's leg in a car accident. The Claimant was hit by the Defendant’s car causing him to suffer an injury to his leg. Baker v Willoughby. Shortly after the accident P was shot in the leg and it had to be amputated immediately. Baker v Willoughby: Case Summary. Page 5 of 22 The decisions in Baker v Willoughby (1970) and Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982) are difficult to reconcile. To extend the law to such a degree would be such a radical decision as to amount to a legislative act. The authority by which the judge held himself bound, and that whichis the linchpin of the argument for the appellant before your Lordships,is the decision of this house in Baker v. Willoughby [1970] AC 467. He then developed an independent back condition which was unrelated to the injury which left him unable to work. 3 He was then shot in the same leg during a robbery at work, this injury meant that the leg had to be amputated. However, one of the claimants previous employers was now insolvent. 158) nor workable in other cases. In Jobling, all of the law lords ex- pressed some discomfort with Baker v. Willoughby. In Baker, the claimant was permitted to claim a continuing loss in respect of the damaged leg even though he no longer had it. The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. About three years later, just...... Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd United Kingdom House of Lords 25 June 1981 Concurrent causes correct incorrect. 2. The court took the view that if Mr Willoughby had not been negligent in his driving to begin with, the complainant would not have lost his leg. Thus, he was still liable as if the shooting had never happened and must compensate Mr Baker for losses after the amputation. Due to this Baker had to seek new employment. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal by Mr. Jobling. I shall not enlarge upon Moreover, the House criticised the decision in Baker v Willoughby. Baker v Willoughby (1970) The plaintiff suffered a leg injury in a car accident attributable to the negligence of the defendant, which necessitated him taking a job in a scrap metal yard. Wieland V Cyril Carpets. Citations: [1970] AC 467; [1970] 2 WLR 50; [1969] 3 All ER 1528; (1970) 114 SJ 15; [1970] CLY 1862. The trial judge applied Baker v Willoughby and held that the claimant was … The judgements were critical of the decision in Baker v Willoughby but stopped short of overruling it; Reconciling Baker v Willoughby and Jobling. ... Baker v Willoughby Ltd. D. Smith v Littlewoods Ltd. 10. The rationale appears to rest on Baker being authority for recovery where the second event is criminal or possibly tortious. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 The claimant suffered an injury to his leg when the defendant ran into him in his car. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467; Barker v Corus [2006] UKHL 20; Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428; Chester v Afshar [2005] 3 WLR 927; ... Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794. The negligent car driver is liable for all the damage; even the part that the rescuer caused (Baker v Willoughby). c.f: Baker v Willoughby. In Baker v Willoughby (1970) (HoL) the claimant’s leg had been injured in a car accident. ... Gregg V Scott - Coin toss (Lady Hale). Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 by Will Chen Key point In general, a supervening event that occurs between the time of the tortious act and trial which worsens the existing damage/injury does not reduce the amount of compensation due Facts C was hit by D’s car, injuring C’s leg Jobling v Associated Dairies. The defendant had a clear view of the plaintiff prior to the collision, but was driving at an excessive speed or failing to keep a proper look-out or both. But as soon as we start to consider ‘multiple defendants’ (Cook v Lewis & Akenhead [1952]), ‘consecutive causes of the same damage’ (Baker v Willoughby [1970]/Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982]) and ‘damages for loss of a chance’ (Hotson v East Berkshire Subsequently, a bullet injury on the same leg inflicted by a bank robber resulted in the amputation of that leg. Baker v Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Dairies are contrasting cases which illustrate the courts' approach to which causation problem? Jobling V Associated Dairies. However, before the trial Baker’s new place of employment (a scrap metal plant) was robbed and he was shot by one of the robbers in his already injured leg. 158) nor workable in other cases. Baker v Willoughby House of Lords. Intervening events by the claimants. I shall not enlarge uponthis point in view of … B. This case followed the general principle laid out in FAIRCHILD, that the claimant only has to recover the whole damages from just one defendant for asbestos related injuries. This is exactly what happened in the case of Baker v Willoughby [1969] UKHL 8, which concerned a road traffic accident involving a pedestrian injured by a car. He was suing the Willoughby for loss of potential income resulting from the injury. In Jobling the question was how the discovery that a plaintiff was suffering from myellopathy at a date after he had been seriously injured at work affected the calculation of damage as against the employer, to which the answer was that it did with serious criticisms being made of the reasoning in Baker v Willoughby. Baker v Willoughby. The plaintiff had negligently failed to see the defendant’s car approaching. Jobling v Associated Dairies. The House held that when assessing damages courts should take into account all factors, supervening myelopathy being one of them, and therefore reduced the defendants’ liability. 1. and . The first defendant, the employer, failed to protect the claimant from an attack. Facts: The claimant, a butcher, slipped on the floor at work. His pre-existing spinal condition must be considered and all factors taken into account, in order for the court … Baker v Willoughby30 and Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd31 illustrate distinguishing factors, and further the argument there is no logical precedent followed by the courts. The case is concerned with the question of " breaking the chain of causation", or novus actus interveniens . Baker V Willoughby. if workable on the particular facts of Baker v. Willoughby (where successive injuries were sustained by the same limb) is as a general solution not supported by the authority he invokes (Harwood v. Wyken Colliery Co. [1913] 2 K.B. But in turning this head damage into money it is not necessary to show that she would probably have become a solicitor. Given this, compare Baker v Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Diaries. The House held that when assessing damages courts should take into account all factors, supervening myelopathy being one of them, and therefore reduced the defendants’ liability. The court, while not overruling Baker v Willoughby, was nevertheless very critical of the case. If that were the worst that could be said against it, it might stand in the uncomfortable company of Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467. The paradoxical produced by the ‘but for’ test in such instances that - no one. killed the sheriff - can be avoided in such instances by abandoning the traditional but for test in favour of Professor Richard Wright’s ‘NESS’ test. Unknown causes correct incorrect. Where the supervening event is tortious, there is no reduction in damages: Baker; But where the supervening event is non-tortious and a vicissitude of life, there is a reduction: Jobling If a claimant is injured by one defendant (‘A’) and is later injured in the same way by another defendant (‘B’), A is only deemed to have caused the injury up until the date of the second injury: Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467. McKew V Holland. Sexual health help and advice; Mental health information; Long-distance relationships; Guide to contraception; Common student health problems; Useful welfare phone numbers … Continue reading Chapman v Hearse, … Due to his injury he had to find alternative work. In Baker v Willoughby(1970), the plaintiff's first leg injury was inflicted by the first defendant. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467. The Defendant would have ‘got away’ with the original injuries sustained by the Claimant. In Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd for example, the chain of causation was broken by the Claimant’s subsequent disease. The facts of the case Mr Baker had been travelling in a van when it ran out of fuel. The eggshell skull correct incorrect. However, in Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] it was said that the liability of the defendant ended when the second (natural) incident occurred; ⇒ The decision in Jobling undermined but did not overrule Baker v Willoughby: it really comes down to whether or not there is an innocent or natural explanation Willoughby (where successiveinjuries were sustained by the same limb) is as a general solution notsupported by the authority he invokes ( Harwood v. Wyken Colliery Co.[1913] 2 K.B. 158) nor workable in other cases. Judgement for the case Baker v Willoughby. Intervening Events. Jobling is also conventionally distinguished from Baker v Willoughby where a claimant who had suffered damage to his leg in a road traffic accident was later shot in the same leg which had to be amputated. It was held that the employer would only be liable for damages and partial loss of earnings for the four years Mr Jobling was employed. that it can now be seen that Lord Reid's theory of concurrent causes evenif workable on the particular facts of Baker v. Willoughby (where successiveinjuries were sustained by the same limb) is as a general solution notsupported by the authority he invokes (Harwood v. Wyken Colliery Co.[1913] 2 K.B. Facts. Jobling v Associated Dairies would suggest that the driver is only liable for the part he caused but I think this can be distinguished because the consecutive cause was not a tort. Supervening causes correct incorrect * not completed. Lord Reid's theory of 'concurrent causes,' on which he based his speech for the majority in Baker v. Willoughby, was criticized by Lord Wilberforce in Jobling as being 'not workable in other cases' 3; the theory would not distinguish between Baker’s leg and ankle was severely injured due to the negligent driving of Willoughby. There the plaintiff was injured in a road accident which left him with a permanently stiff leg. Baker v. Willoughby, which, after Jobling, would seem to stand in that limbo category of cases decided on their own facts,14 can only be reconciled with the vicissitudes prin-ciple by deciding that a discount is to be made only if they are 8 [1981] … The court was critical and did not follow the decision in Baker v Willoughby; this was called an exception to the normal test of causation. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 *Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794 Gray v Thames Trains [2009] 3 WLR 167 (how did the court reconcile the two earlier cases?) P walked into the middle of the road and D, driving, ran into him, causing damage to P’s leg. He suffered pain and loss of amenity and had to take a lower paid job. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal by Mr. Jobling. Rahman v Arearose (1) kings-cross burger-king case. This is because the decision in Baker seemingly conflicts with the House of Lords decision in Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794. In Jobling, the House of Lords distinguished and criticised Baker, but did not overrule it. There are two ways of interpreting this case:
