Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794
Eggshell Skull Rule – Negligence – Law of Tort – Causation – Loss of Earnings
Facts
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. 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. 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. It would eventually disable him entirely and he would be unable to work.
Issues
The lower courts applied Baker v Willoughby and the complainant was awarded damages beyond the diagnosis of the condition. The employer’s appealed against this decision. The issue was one of causation and whether his pre-existing spinal disease should be taken into account for assessing work-related damages. 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.
Decision/Outcome
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. 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. His pre-existing spinal condition must be considered and all factors taken into account, in order for the court not to award excessive compensation. 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.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a statement of the decision in Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794 and its effect on the law of causation and tortious damages. The House of Lords’ ruling — that a pre-existing but unconnected condition supervening before trial must be taken into account when assessing damages, and that Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 is confined to its particular facts involving a tortious supervening act — continues to represent good law in England and Wales. No subsequent legislation or Supreme Court authority has reversed or significantly altered this position. The principle that courts must account for the ‘vicissitudes of life’ when assessing future loss remains firmly established in personal injury damages law. One point worth noting for clarity: the article describes the spinal disease as ‘pre-existing’, which is accurate in the sense that it existed independently of the accident; however, it manifested after the accident. Readers should be aware that the precise interplay between Jobling and Baker v Willoughby remains a nuanced area, and the two cases are generally treated as addressing different factual scenarios (tortious versus non-tortious supervening events) rather than one straightforwardly overruling the other.
