Facts and Judgment
Baker v Willoughby  AC 467
The claimant suffered an injury to his leg when the defendant ran into him in his car. He suffered pain and loss of amenity and had to take a lower paid job. He tried various different employments some of which he had to discontinue because of his injury. He was employed sorting through scrap metal when he sustained a further injury to his leg. He was on his own when two men came in and demanded money. When he refused they shot him in his injured leg. As a result of the shooting, the claimant had to have his leg amputated. The defendant argued that the second injury removed the very limb from which the earlier disability had stemmed, and that
therefore no loss suffered thereafter can be attributed to the defendant's negligence. Arguing that the second injury submerged or obliterated the effect of the first and that all loss thereafter must be attributed to the second injury. The trial judge rejected this argument which he said was more ingenious than attractive. But it was accepted by the Court of Appeal.
House of Lords held:
The defendant remained liable for the loss of amenity and lower earning capacity even after the amputation. Back to lecture outline on causation in tortious liability