Baker v Willoughby

Facts

Baker was knocked down by a car negligently driven by Willoughby and suffered a serious injury to his left leg, leaving him with a stiff and painful leg and reduced capacity to work. Some time later, while he was at work, he was shot in the same leg by robbers in an armed raid, and the leg had to be amputated. The robbers were not before the court. Liability for the road accident was established, and the question was how long Willoughby's liability for loss of earnings and loss of amenity continued.

History

The courts below limited the damages to the period up to the date of the robbery, treating the second injury as ending the effects of the first. Baker appealed to the House of Lords.

Issue

Whether a defendant who negligently injured the claimant is relieved of liability for the continuing loss of earning capacity once a later independent tort inflicts a more serious injury on the same limb.

Held

Appeal allowed. The defendant remained liable for the whole of the loss of earning capacity and amenity caused by the first injury, and his liability was not cut off by the robbery.

Ratio

• Where the claimant's disability has been caused by the defendant's tort, a later independent tort which inflicts a further injury does not reduce the damages for loss of earning capacity and amenity attributable to the first tort, since the original injury continues to be a cause of the loss.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• The damages for the first injury are for the loss of the capacity to work and of amenity, a loss that the amputation did not eliminate but merely failed to add to, so the consequences of the first tort continued as a concurrent cause.
• If the first tortfeasor's liability ended at the robbery, the claimant would be undercompensated, because the robbers, taking him as they found him with his leg already disabled, would be liable only for the additional harm, leaving a gap in his compensation for the effects of the first injury.
• The principle is that damages are compensation for the injury and its effects on the claimant's life, and a later event of which the first tortfeasor is not the author does not retrospectively remove the loss for which he was responsible.

Where it fits in the module

On the FHS Tort list under damages and causation. Baker v Willoughby exposes the tension between causation and the compensatory principle through the problem of vanishing damages, where a later event removes the loss caused by the first tort. The debate is whether the first tortfeasor's liability should be reduced when the later event is a tort but not when it is a natural illness, as the House held in Jobling, and whether the rule survives that treatment. Candidates should also consider the conceptual shift between treating damages as compensating for lost earnings and as compensating for the loss of capacity.

Criticisms

• Treating the loss of earning capacity as a continuing loss even when the claimant has in fact lost nothing more from the first tort sits uneasily with compensation for actual loss, since the claimant recovers for a loss ultimately caused by the second event.
• Distinguishing a tortious from a non-tortious supervening event, as Jobling does, is arbitrary: the claimant's loss is the same either way, and the first tortfeasor is treated differently only because the later event happened to be wrongful.
• The fear of a gap in compensation justifies the rule only where the second tortfeasor is liable for no more than the additional loss, and where both tortfeasors are sued the rule risks over-compensation or complex apportionment.