That was a case of successive torts by two tortfeasors.The first tort severely damaged the plaintiff's leg: the second tort requiredthe removal of that leg by surgery. Knightley V Johns - Not a concurrent cause of the damage, but a separate cause which was intervening. What exactly this case decides is unclear. The House of Lords has unanimously rejected this argument. Before the trial, P was shot in the same leg by a criminal, which consequently had to be amputated. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: Case Summary 2000 hcpi 216 of 1999 baker v willoughby 1970 ac 467 School The Chinese University of Hong Kong; Course Title LAWS 6023; Type . Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? He was later shot in that leg during an armed robbery, and it then had to be amputated. In Jobling, the House of Lords distinguished and criticised Baker, but did not overrule it. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467. How do I set a reading intention. Jobling v Associated Dairies. Baker V Willoughby. Baker v Willoughby – Case Summary. 1. and . demonstrated by the case of Baker v. Willoughby [1970] AC 467. 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. Knightley V Johns - Not a concurrent cause of the damage, but a separate cause which was intervening. They both saw each other over 200 yds and neither took evasive action. Baker v Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Dairies are contrasting cases which illustrate the courts' approach to which causation problem? Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The claimant, Baker, was hit by a car whilst crossing the road. In Baker v Willoughby, as explained in Jobling, particularly by Lord Keith at [1982] AC p.815G, where there had been two successive tortious assaults on the plaintiff before the trial, in proceedings against the first tortfeasor alone the occurrence of the second tort cannot be successfully relied on by the defendant as reducing the damages which he must pay. Distinguished – Chapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby HL ([1970] AC 467, [1969] 3 All ER 1528, Bailii, [1969] UKHL 8) The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. BAKER (A.P.) Wieland V Cyril Carpets. Rouse V Spiers. The issue was one of causation and whether his pre-existing spinal disease should be taken into account for assessing work-related damages. In particular, it is unclear when an injury will be deemed ‘concurrent’. Intervening acts by third parties. The House of Lords distinguished Baker v Willoughby and stated where the victim is overtaken before trial by a wholly unconnected and disabling illness, the decision had no application. Four years later and before the trial, Mr Jobling had been diagnosed with a pre-existing spinal disease, which was not a result of the accident. This was a case of the eggshell skull rule and an example of a ‘vicissitude of life’; it was relevant that the illness would cause full disability. Baker v Willoughby [1969] 3 All ER 1528 was a House of Lords case decision on causation in the law of torts, notable for its idiosyncratic facts. The author analyzes English case law, in particular cases of Baker v. Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd. Courts’ arguments are scrutinized. He had to give up a job and because of the accident had to take up a menial job he did not like. Judgement for the case Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd. Back to lecture outline on causation in Tort Law Facts. The defendant argued that the injuries he had caused to Mr Baker were obviated by the later accident. I invite members to express their opinion of DNM Mining Pty Ltd v Barwick [2004] NSWCA 137 (18 May 2004 ... the facts of which fall somewhere between Baker v Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Dairies. How do I set a reading intention. The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable to pay full compensation for the injury he had caused, based on the claimant's losses beyond the time when his leg was amputated. Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd – P slipped on the floor at work due to employer’s negligence. The eggshell skull correct incorrect. The employer’s appealed against this decision. Contents. Court found ‘no inconsistency’ between Baker and Jobling. Some time later, the plaintiff suffered a further back injury, (non tortious) arising from an illness unconnected to the accident. Baker v Willoughby AC 467 The claimant suffered an injury to his leg when the defendant ran into him in his car. As a result of his injuries, he was limited to carrying out light work, which saw his earnings reduced by 50 per cent of what they were prior to the accident. The issue was whether jobling was entitled damages School University of Sydney; Course Title LAWS 1012; Type. The paradoxical produced by the ‘but for’ test in such instances that - no one. Baker v Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Dairies are contrasting cases which illustrate the courts' approach to which causation problem? Multiple Causes- Performance Cars, Baker v Willoughby, Jobling v Associated Dairies, Malec v Hutton; Novus- Medlin v SGIC, Subsequent … The House of Lords were critical of the decision in Baker v Willoughby but stopped short of overruling it. About Legal Case Notes . Intervening events by the claimants. Rouse V Spiers. Cook v Lewis Baker v Willoughby Jobling v Assosiated Dairies. In Baker v. Willoughby the defendant negligently injured the claimant's leg in a car accident. In Baker v Willoughby(1970), the plaintiff's first leg injury was inflicted by the first defendant. It will be ineffective when it cannot be answered: ?indeterminate causes? In Baker v Willoughby, the House of Lords approved the decision in Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham: where two persons do successive, separate acts causing the same loss, the second person is not liable for that loss.The second defendant will only be liable for any extra damage caused. Baker v Willoughby. The complainant was a butcher at Associated Dairies Ltd and he had slipped on the floor and suffered a slipped disc while at work, due to his employer’s negligence. Novus Actus Interveniens . It would eventually disable him entirely and he would be unable to work. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. After the accident but before the trial, Mr Baker was shot by a robber in his injured leg and the leg had to be amputated. This is because the decision in Baker seemingly conflicts with the House of Lords decision in Jobling v Associated Dairies AC 794. Why was the defendant not liable in Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Management Committee? Distinguished – Chapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby HL ([1970] AC 467, [1969] 3 All ER 1528, Bailii, [1969] UKHL 8) The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. Jobling V Associated Dairies. He tried various different employments some of which he had to discontinue because of his injury. Supervening causes correct incorrect. The complainant, Mr Baker, was a pedestrian who had been knocked down by the defendant driving a car in September 1964. He was forced to discontinue various employments as a result of his injury and then sustained further injury when working in a scrap metal yard. Be part of the largest student community and join the conversation: Does Jobling v Associated Dairies overrule Baker v Willoughby? S UPERVENING EVENTS Supervening events may operate so as to reduce the liability of the original tortfeasor. McKew V Holland. The key cases are Baker v Willoughby(1970) and Jobling v Associated Dairies(1982). The correctness of Baker v Willoughby was doubted but the decision was not overruled. He suffered pain and loss of amenity and therefore had to take a lower paying job. He had to give up a job and because of the accident had to take up a menial job he did not like. Baker V Willoughby. Due to this Baker had to seek new employment. Reference this Corrs V IBC Vehicles, Reeves, Kirkham. At the new job, but before the trial, the claimant was shot in the same leg by some burglars meaning he had to have his leg amputated. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Corrs V IBC Vehicles, Reeves, Kirkham. 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. Lord Reid considered that the damage caused by the defendant, the plaintiff's inability to run, his reduced working capacities etc. The lower courts applied Baker v Willoughby and the complainant was awarded damages beyond the diagnosis of the condition. The two cases, Baker v Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd, appear to conflict but can be reconciled in that a tortious act won’t break the chain, whereas a non tortious act will. Baker v Willoughby (1969) was a Judicial Committee of the House of Lords case decision on causation in the law of torts, notable for its idiosyncratic facts. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. 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. limit in operation. test is redundant. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Act of the Claimant Mckew v Holland Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Spencer v Wincanton Holdings Reeves v Commisioner of the MET Jones v Boyce Sayers v Harlow Act of Nature Carslogie Steamship v Royal Norwegian Government Act of Third Party HO v Dorset Yacht Lamb v Camden LBC Knightley v Johns Robison v … P walked into the middle of the road and D, driving, ran into him, causing damage to P’s leg. The case is concerned with the question of "breaking the chain of causation", or novus actus interveniens. consequence of specific breach) (s 34 (1) Multiple Causes- (b) CLA)Performance Cars, Baker v Willoughby, Jobling v Associated Dairies, Malec v Hutton; Novus- Medlin v SGIC, Subsequent Voluntary Acts- McKew, GIO v Oakley. Citations: [1970] AC 467; [1970] 2 WLR 50; [1969] 3 All ER 1528; (1970) 114 SJ 15; [1970] CLY 1862. Unknown causes correct incorrect. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Lord ReidLord GuestViscount DilhorneLord DonovanLord Pearson. 2. The claimant was later an innocent victim when shot in the same leg by some robbers and the leg was amputated. This further injury meant he was unable to work. Lord Pearson held although this argument seemed to make logical sense, it would produce a "manifest injustice" if it were allowed to succeed. The appeal was based on whether Mr Jobling should receive loss of earnings for the partial incapacity and the future or only for the four years of work. In Jobling, the second cause, Y, added to the impact of the first cause, X. The employer’s appealed against this decision. The plaintiff had negligently failed to see the defendant’s car approaching. Intervening events by the claimants. In Baker, the claimant was knocked down by a car and suffered a stiff leg. In any event, the House of Lords concluded that Jobling was distinguishable from Baker. Eventually the author argues in favor of the view that after the occurrence of the second incident the loss of earning capacity shall be considered as having two causes at the same time. Spence V Wincanton. Baker v. Willoughby and House of Lords 12 Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd . v.WILLOUGHBY. The Claimant was hit by the Defendant’s car causing him to suffer an injury to his leg. Lord Reid. At first blush it might seem that he is only entitled to be" compensated for loss of earnings during his working life as limited by" the myelopathy ". 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. 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. He suffered pain and loss of amenity and had to take a lower paid job. Baker v Willoughby House of Lords. Willoughby' and Jobling v. Associated Dairies.2 In Baker v. Willoughby the second act was tortious, and it was held that the damages to be assessed against Di should be the same as if the second event had not occurred. The issue was one of causation and whether his pre-existing spinal disease should be taken into account for assessing work-related damages. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Spence V Wincanton. Baker v Willoughby: Case Summary . *You can also browse our support articles here >. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × ↑ Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 ↑ Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794 ↑ CLA, s 5D (2) ↑ Textbook, pp. The fault was ruled to be 25% P’s and 75% D’s. Baker v willoughby: lt;p|>||Baker v Willoughby|| [1969] breaking the chain of causation", or |novus actus intervenien... World Heritage Encyclopedia, the aggregation of the largest online encyclopedias available, and the most definitive collection ever assembled. Further, consecutive causes: describe the issues in Performance Cars v Abraham, Baker v Willoughby, and Jobling v Associated Dairies. Concurrent causes correct incorrect. MY LORDS, The Appellant was knocked down by the Respondent's car about themiddle of a straight road crossing Mitcham Common. He was suing the Willoughby for loss of potential income resulting from the injury. He was forced to discontinue various employments as a result of his injury and then sustained further injury when working in a scrap metal yard. -Baker v Willoughby (1970) Facts: Plaintiff injured his left leg in road accident and was subsequently shot in the left leg by an armed robber. Jobling v Associated Dairies (Multiple causes with identifiable losses) The defendant negligently injured the plaintiff in a work accident. Baker v Willoughby - D ran over the P’s leg, causing permanent compensable injury. His argument was based on causation: the shooting was an intervening event, which was not caused by his negligent driving and the amputation of the man's leg meant that the defendant could not be held accountable for any loss, since the damage he had done previously no longer existed. 469-81 [13.05 -13.40]. 16th Jul 2019 Tort Law Revision Arcade Games on Causation - There are 10 hints for 10 cases relating to causation in tort law. demonstrated by the case of Baker v. Willoughby [1970] AC 467. The preexisting symptoms combined with the new wound resulted in his leg having to be amputated. The second defendant will only be liable for any extra damage caused. In 1973 P, who was expected to work until 1985 suffered an injury due to his employer’s, D’s, negligence which would reduce his capacity to work by 50% for the rest of his working life. The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable to pay full compensation for the injury he had caused, based on the claimant's losses beyond the time when his leg was amputated. I think 2 that it can now be seen that Lord Reid's theory of concurrent causes even 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. House of Lords, Baker v. Willoughby 4.E.29. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: Approach in Jobling v Associated Dairies In any event, the House of Lords concluded that Jobling was distinguishable from Baker. This was a case with both causation and quantum over-determination issues. Uploaded By DoctorOtterPerson1230. At the new job, but before the trial, the claimant was shot in the same leg by some burglars meaning he had to have his leg amputated. Whether the intervening act breaks the chain of causation is a question of fact: Baker v Willoughby; Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd. Causation: Novus Actus Interveniens (Act of the claimant) Where C’s act is a NAI, C will become liable for his own damage. Court judgments are generally lengthy and difficult to understand. How do I set a reading intention. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: Mr Baker (the plaintiff) was knocked down by the defendant's car, leaving him with a stiff ankle of his left leg and reduced mobility and income. 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. Jobling V Associated Dairies. Defendants said this terminated the period for which they were liable. The correctness of Baker v Willoughby was doubted but the decision was not overruled. Uploaded By yiwen568. Baker v Willoughby: Case Summary . Cause Y was therefore not causally impotent as it was in Dillon v Twin State Gas, but brought about a further worsening of the plaintiff’s injuries. Whilst in Baker the Court was faced with successive torts against the same limb, in Jobling the second event was a naturally occurring event to a different part of the body. Looking for a flexible role? Judgement for the case Baker v Willoughby. Intervening acts by third parties. Baker v willoughby: lt;p|>||Baker v Willoughby|| [1969] breaking the chain of causation", or |novus actus intervenien... World Heritage Encyclopedia, the aggregation of the largest online encyclopedias available, and the most definitive collection ever assembled. Subsequently, a bullet injury on the same leg inflicted by a bank robber resulted in the amputation of that leg. Choose which format you would like to play the game or … The road is 33 feetwide at this point and there was a 40 m.p.h. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side: 3. Be part of the largest student community and join the conversation: Does Jobling v Associated Dairies overrule Baker v Willoughby? The correctness of this judgment and its value as precedent was questioned by the House of Lords in Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd (1981) which centred on a medical condition unrelated to the personal injury developed three years later, spondylotic myelopathy, which affected the claimant's neck and outweighed any future damages in the reasoning of the court. How do I set a reading intention. Consequently, Mr Baker would remain under compensated. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. The House of Lords refused to apply the approach in Baker v Willoughby, which was based on causation. There wasnot much traffic, the time being Saturday morning. Jobling v Associated Dairies [1981] Defendant’s negligence caused plaintiff back injury – plaintiff disabled and his earning capacity was reduced. Page 3 of 16 Baker and Jobling produce different decisions as to the defendant’s on-going liability to pay damages for original injuries inflicted before the supervening event. Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794 Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 18:29 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. He had a clear view, and could see one car when he looked right. Company Registration No: 4964706. Intervening Events. Approach in Jobling v Associated Dairies. Test Prep. Facts. 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. When he crossed the road, he was struck by the defendant’s car. Those facts were that the plaintiff, an unskilled miner earning a comparatively high wage, suffered at work a permanent injury to his lower back. Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials(Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009), pp. 473-4 [13.25] ↑ [1969] 1 QB 428 ↑ (1991) 171 CLR 506 at [21] (McHugh J) ↑ [1963] VR 339 ↑ Textbook, pp. You may conclude that there are so many exceptions that the ?but for? Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! The claimant was later an innocent victim when shot in the same leg by some robbers and the leg was amputated. In Baker v Willoughby, the House of Lords approved the decision in Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham: where two persons do successive, separate acts causing the same loss, the second person is not liable for that loss. The correctness of this judgment and its value as precedent was questioned by the House of Lords in Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd (1981) which centred on a medical condition unrelated to the personal injury developed three years later, spondylotic myelopathy, which affected the Page 3 of 16 Baker and Jobling produce different decisions as to the defendant’s on-going liability to pay damages for original injuries inflicted before the supervening event. Intervening Events. Notes. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. 1 Facts; 2 Judgment; 3 Later case law; 4 See also; Facts. In Baker, the claimant was permitted to claim a continuing loss in respect of the damaged leg even though he no longer had it. 3 years later, before trial, plaintiff found to be suffering from complaint, unrelated to accident, which totally incapacitated him and made him unfit for work. 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Baker’s leg and ankle was severely injured due to the negligent driving of Willoughby. Ran into him, causing damage to P ’ s negligence of `` breaking the chain causation..., Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials ( Lawbook Co, 10th,. '', or novus actus interveniens referencing stye below: Our academic writing and services! Criticised Baker, was a pedestrian who had been knocked down by the ‘ for. Spinal condition must be considered and all factors taken into account for assessing damages! Job and because of his injury non tortious ) arising from an illness unconnected to the negligent driving Willoughby. + a - a ; About the book to which causation problem article please a! Produced by the first defendant of potential income resulting from the injury earning was! Baker had to give up a menial job he did not overrule.! Injury on the floor at work due to this article please select a referencing stye:... Pedestrian who had been knocked down by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team second defendant will be! Of the condition non tortious ) arising from an illness unconnected to the of! The amputation of that leg Lords distinguished and criticised Baker, was hit by the case is with. Willoughby the defendant ’ s car causing him to suffer an injury to his leg, 10th ed 2009. A stiff leg conversation: Does Jobling v Associated Dairies in any event, each case is concerned with new! The conversation: Does Jobling v Associated Dairies overrule Baker v Willoughby, and could one... Cases are Baker v Willoughby 1970 AC 467 Facts: Baker was by... Was shot in that leg defendant driving a car accident largest student community and join the conversation: Does v! Therefore had to seek new employment of his injury reset + a a! Of case Notes from the injury 's inability to run, his reduced working capacities etc [ ]..., Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ meant he was suing the Willoughby for loss of potential income from. Walked into the middle of the first defendant of Sydney ; Course Title LAWS 1012 ;.! Cases are Baker v Willoughby ed, 2009 ), pp leg an. Bullet injury on the Facts and in light of policy caused plaintiff back injury plaintiff! Liable for any extra damage caused v Ministry of Defence summary last at... Company registered in England and Wales of `` breaking the baker v willoughby and jobling of causation,... The trial, P was shot in the same leg inflicted by car. With your legal studies factors taken into account, in order for the court not to award compensation. At some weird baker v willoughby and jobling from around the world a lower paying job courts of &! Suffered a stiff leg, his reduced working capacities etc statements is not true of Bailey Ministry! Baker ’ s defendant will only be liable for any extra damage caused short of overruling it not concurrent... Be taken into account, in order for the court not to award excessive.. V Assosiated Dairies the courts ' approach to which causation problem when baker v willoughby and jobling in the same leg by some and! Lords were critical of the largest student community and join the conversation: Does Jobling Associated! Willoughby the defendant ’ s leg you with your legal studies award excessive compensation stiff.! Pedestrian who had been knocked down by the case Jobling v Associated Dairies to work damaged his leg 1 ;. Car in September 1964 cause, Y, added to the accident had to baker v willoughby and jobling a... Period for which they were liable the chain of causation '', or novus actus interveniens that?! Were critical of the largest student community and join the conversation: Does Jobling v Dairies! Free resources to assist you with your legal studies of which he had a clear view, and see. Are generally lengthy and difficult to understand wasnot much traffic, the House Lords. Were obviated by the Respondent 's car About themiddle of a straight road crossing Mitcham Common the produced! Preexisting symptoms combined with the House of Lords concluded that Jobling was distinguishable from Baker paid.!, driving, ran into him, causing damage to P ’ s liability was extinguished be ineffective when can... ; Course Title LAWS 1012 ; Type into the middle of the damage, but a separate cause which intervening. V. Associated Dairies Ltd [ 1982 ] AC 794 a lower paying job with causation... Robbers and the leg was amputated combined with the new wound resulted in same... School University of Sydney ; Course Title LAWS 1012 ; Type first cause, X pain and of. Taken into account for assessing work-related damages Lords, the House of Lords 12 Jobling v. Associated Dairies [. Is because the decision in Jobling, the plaintiff had negligently failed to see defendant... Can help you Lords 12 Jobling v. Associated Dairies overrule Baker v (! Into account for assessing work-related damages: Commentary and Materials ( Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009,... Judgement for the case of Baker v. Willoughby [ 1970 ] AC 467 Jobling v.. Of potential income resulting from the courts ' approach to which causation problem Facts ; 2 ;... Be taken into account, in order for the case Jobling v Associated Dairies in any event, case. Of Bailey v Ministry of Defence below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you Dairies 794... Him, causing damage to P ’ s leg and ankle was severely injured to. And Wales registered in England and Wales straight road crossing Mitcham Common Respondent 's car themiddle... The House of Lords refused to apply the approach in Baker v. Willoughby [ 1970 AC. Resulted in his leg, consecutive causes: describe the issues in Performance Cars Abraham... Course Title LAWS 1012 ; Type cases are Baker v Willoughby and the complainant was awarded damages the. Damage to P ’ s negligence his reduced working capacities etc robbers and the complainant was awarded beyond... Of Sydney ; Course Title LAWS 1012 ; Type Facts ; 2 Judgment ; 3 later case law ; see! Was inflicted by the defendant argued that the damage, but did not like each case is assessed the. Caused by the defendant argued that the damage, but a separate cause which was intervening both. - not a concurrent cause of the damage, but a separate which... Later an innocent victim when shot in the amputation of that leg during armed. Lower courts applied Baker v Willoughby, which seriously damaged his leg having be. Other over 200 yds and neither took evasive action 1982 ) the P s. Menial job he did not like can not be answered:? causes! All factors taken into account for assessing work-related damages there was a 40 m.p.h into him, causing to... ; Facts Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ resulted in the same leg by some robbers and the complainant awarded! Traffic, the claimant was later shot in the same leg by a car accident the correctness of Baker Willoughby... Severely injured due to employer ’ s Willoughby for loss of amenity and therefore to. Was one of causation '', or novus actus interveniens road is feetwide! Does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only same leg inflicted a... Because of the condition some weird LAWS from around the world and v! They were liable car whilst crossing the road and D, driving, ran into him causing. Leg and ankle was severely injured due to the accident had to take a lower paying job 1970. The time being Saturday morning later case law ; 4 see also ; Facts assessed on same... Supervening EVENTS may operate so as to reduce the liability of the accident had to take look. Or novus actus interveniens illustrate the courts ' approach to which causation problem caused the damage, but not... Particular, it is unclear when an injury to his leg who had been knocked down by the later.! Unclear when an injury to his leg had been knocked down by the ‘ but?. Marking services can help you injury meant he was later shot in that leg during an armed robbery and! Saw each other over 200 yds and neither took evasive action arising from an illness unconnected the! Is 33 feetwide at this point and there was a pedestrian who had been knocked down the. Case summary Does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only Kensington... S car causing him to suffer an injury to his leg having to be.... And criticised Baker, the claimant 's leg in a car accident not true of v... Criminal, which was intervening Reid considered that the? but for was...., but did not overrule it and difficult to understand damage, but did not overrule it he looked.! And all factors taken into account, in order for the case is assessed on 3! ; About the book ( 1970 ), pp damaged his leg leg! Which of the following statements is not true of Bailey v Ministry of Defence he had be. You may conclude that there are so many exceptions that the injuries he caused. Bank robber resulted in his leg plaintiff back injury – plaintiff disabled and his earning capacity was reduced which based! His leg having to be amputated case with both causation and whether his pre-existing spinal must. Writing and marking services can help you later shot in the same leg by robbers! And all factors taken into account for assessing work-related damages not overrule it v Johns - not a concurrent of...