Legal Case Summary
Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467
Law of Tort – Negligence – Causation – Remoteness of Damage – Damages – Novus Actus Interveniens
Facts
The complainant, Mr Baker, was a pedestrian who had been knocked down by the defendant driving a car in September 1964. The negligent driving by the defendant caused serious injury to his left leg, which left him with mobility problems and unable to work in the labour market as he did before. This led to reduced earnings. In November 1967 and before the trial, Mr Baker was an innocent victim of an armed robbery at his workplace and suffered several gunshot wounds to the leg. This was the same leg affected by the car accident and it was subsequently amputated.
Issues
The defendant argued that the shooting incident had broken the chain of causation and the injuries from the road accident no longer existed. The issue was whether the shooting was a new intervening act or if the defendant should be accountable for all losses suffered.
Decision / Outcome
The defendant was held to be liable for losses and reduced earnings, even after the shooting and amputation of the leg. 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. It was stated that when there are two accidents that are consecutive and contribute to the same injury, the original defendant would be liable for the overall injury.
Updated 19 March 2026
This summary of Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 remains legally accurate. The case is still good law as authority for the proposition that a subsequent tortious act does not automatically break the chain of causation established by an earlier tort where both events contribute to the same injury, and the original defendant remains liable for the ongoing loss.
However, readers should be aware that the reasoning in Baker v Willoughby was significantly qualified by the House of Lords in Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794. In Jobling, the House distinguished Baker v Willoughby on the basis that the supervening event there was a natural illness (a pre-existing spinal condition unconnected with the tort), not a subsequent tortious act. The House held that in cases involving a supervening non-tortious event, damages should be reduced to reflect the vicissitudes of life, and declined to apply the Baker v Willoughby approach. Lords in Jobling also expressed some scepticism about the reasoning in Baker v Willoughby itself, though the decision was not overruled. The precise scope and theoretical basis of Baker v Willoughby therefore remains debated, and students should read it alongside Jobling to understand the full legal position on supervening events in tort damages.
