In cases of parallel injury, a tortfeasor cannot benefit from a second tort that undoes the damage (Baker v. Willoughby) a) But non-culpable behaviour can be relied upon to reduce damages (Penner v. Mitchell) 3. It has already been established that the Plaza building has a care of duty; further, the defendant has breached this care of duty, similar to the case of Baker v Willoughby [1969] which resulted in the cause of the damages suffered by Ms. Hallam, the claimant. as in Cook v Lewis. The author analyzes English case law, in particular cases of Baker v. Willoughby and Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd. Courts’ arguments are scrutinized. Lord ReidLord GuestViscount DilhorneLord DonovanLord Pearson. 469-81 [13.05 -13.40]. Shortly after the accident P was shot in the leg and it had to be amputated immediately. 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. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467, HL. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, HL. Multiple causes of harm. S UPERVENING EVENTS Supervening events may operate so as to reduce the liability of the original tortfeasor. He was suing the Willoughby for loss of potential income resulting from the injury. limit in operation. In-house law team, Law of Tort – Negligence – Causation – Remoteness of Damage – Damages – Novus Actus Interveniens. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. A. 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.The case is concerned with the question of "breaking the chain of causation", or novus actus interveniens. It must be ?over-ruled? The plaintiff had negligently failed to see the defendant’s car approaching. Chapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby: HL 26 Nov 1969. -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. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 (NB CONFINED TO CASES OF TWO TORTIOUS ACTS BY JOBLING): P walked into the middle of the road and D, driving, ran into him, causing damage to P’s leg. claimant's neck and outweighed any future damages in the reasoning of the court. Lord Reid. Lords Edmund-Davies and Keith were the most forceful in disagreeing with the House in Baker . v. WILLOUGHBY Lord Reid Lord Guest Viscount Dilhorne Lord Donovan Lord Pearson Lord Reid MY LORDS, The Appellant was knocked down by the Respondent’s car about the middle of a straight road crossing Mitcham Common. He tried various different employments some of which he had to discontinue because of his injury. [1], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baker_v_Willoughby&oldid=944910210, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, Lord Reid, Lord Guest, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Donovan, Lord Pearson, Personal injury, novus actus interveniens, This page was last edited on 10 March 2020, at 17:30. Shot in the injured leg S UPERVENING EVENTS Supervening events may operate so as to reduce the liability of the original tortfeasor. Multiple tortfea sors including mesothelioma cases. Defendant’s conduct must be reasonably related to … 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. Haber v Walker): Original tort feaser’s liability is cut off if independent event such as intentional tort or crime unforeseeably intervenes. The claimant was knocked down by a car and suffered a permanent stiff leg as a result. Facts: Baker was hit by a car driving negligently, which seriously damaged his leg. This was the same leg affected by the car accident and it was subsequently amputated. Performance Cars v Abrahams Cook v Lewis Baker v Willoughby Jobling v Assosiated Dairies. The House of Lords has unanimously rejected this argument. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Reference this 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. Indeed, there are circumstances in which the ‘but for’ test seems to break down and for this reason, it was not strictly applied in Baker v Willoughby where a literal application of the but-for test would have left the plaintiff recovering for only part of his loss in respect of two independently tortious injuries. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. In any event, each case is assessed on the facts and in light of policy. They both saw each other over 200 yds and neither took evasive action. He suffered pain and loss of amenity and had to take a lower paid job. He was later shot in that leg during an armed robbery, and it then had to be amputated. 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. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Tort Law Revision Arcade Games on Causation - There are 10 hints for 10 cases relating to causation in tort law. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. The road is 33 feet wide at this point and there was a 40 m.p.h. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Relevant case law: eg: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2001), Barker v Corus UK (2006) & e g: Tort Flashcard maker: Chris Jansson. In Jobling, the House of Lords distinguished and criticised Baker, but did not overrule it. Chapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby: HL 26 Nov 1969. Claim. Ratio: The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. limit in operation. Doyle v Wallace (1998) Times, 22 July, CA. 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. The complainant, Mr Baker, was a pedestrian who had been knocked down by the defendant driving a car in September 1964. The House of Lords refused to apply the approach in Baker v Willoughby, which was based on causation. Baker was working in a scrap metal yard when two men entered and demanded money from him. baker v quantum clothing 2011 also in th 1 Cards Preview Flashcards Negligence Factual Causation. Ius Commune Casebooks - Tort Law 429/15 House of Lords 11 4.E.29.-30. Facts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. What exactly this case decides is unclear. He suffered pain and loss of amenity and therefore had to take a lower paying job. tort causation and remoteness of damage the test the hypothetical test is traditionally used to begin the process of establishing factual causation it involves Baker v Willoughby (1969), Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982) & eg: Rahman v Arearose Ltd (2000). The correctness of Baker v Willoughby was doubted but the decision was not overruled. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 The claimant suffered an injury to his leg when the defendant ran into him in his car. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467. Lord Keith concluded that they should have considered the vicissitudes principle in Baker , rather than approach the case using causation. They both saw each other over 200 yds and neither took evasive action. House of Lords, Baker v. Willoughby 4.E.29. with joint liability; similarly, cumulative causes as in Fitzgerald v Lane. Judgement for the case Baker v Willoughby. 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. A. Consequently, Mr Baker would remain under compensated. 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. 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. MY LORDS, The Appellant was knocked down by the Respondent's car about themiddle of a straight road crossing Mitcham Common. The issue was whether the shooting was a new intervening act or if the defendant should be accountable for all losses suffered. The complainant, Mr Baker, was a pedestrian who had been knocked down by the defendant driving a car in September 1964. 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. Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, HL. The case is concerned with the question of "breaking the chain of causation", or novus actus interveniens. The Claimant was hit by the Defendant’s car causing him to suffer an injury to his leg. Baker brought a claim against Willoughby, the driver who first injured his left leg. When Baker said no, he was shot in his left leg. Brennan: Tort Law Concentrate 3e Chapter 7: Multiple choice questions. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. P walked into the middle of the road and D, driving, ran into him, causing damage to P’s leg. 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 5 minutes know interesting legal matters Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 HL (UK Caselaw) Lord Reid considered that the damage caused by the defendant, the plaintiff's inability to run, his reduced working capacities etc. Relevant case law: eg: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2001), Barker v Corus UK (2006) & e g: Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467. v.WILLOUGHBY Go to The Court of Appeal recognised that the trial judge's assessment oughtnot to be varied unless " some error in the judge's approach is clearlydiscernible ". The case is concerned with the question of "breaking the chain of causation", or novus actus interveniens. In Baker , the claimant was knocked down by a car and suffered a stiff leg. 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. Baker v Willoughby After the claimant injured his left leg in a road accident caused by the defendant’s negligence, the claimant was shot in the left leg by an armed robber, and had his leg amputated. 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. 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. Multiple tortfea sors including mesothelioma cases. 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. 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. The House of Lords were critical of the decision in Baker v Willoughby but stopped short of overruling it. Independent sufficient causes a) When each on its own would have occasioned final loss The defendant argued that the shooting incident had broken the chain of causation and the injuries from the road accident no longer existed. BAKER (A.P.) The road is 33 feet wide at this point and there was a 40 m.p.h. The issue was one of causation and whether his pre-existing spinal disease should be taken into account for assessing work-related damages. 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 defendant argued that the injuries he had caused to Mr Baker were obviated by the later accident. This was discussed in Baker v Willoughby: Facts: the plaintiff's leg was injured in a car accident due to the defendant's negligence. Doyle v Wallace (1998) Times, 22 July, CA. Although the defendant was driving carelessly, the claimant had had a clear view of the road and had taken no evasive action. Claimant: Parties that bring the tort claim Defendant: the person who is accused of the wrong doing (tortfeasor) Multiple defendants: Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467: negligently driving a car and broke ankle, before the case someone shot the claimant on the same leg which had to be amputated. Remoteness. Topic. The fault was ruled to be 25% P’s and 75% D’s. Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613, HL. Decisions are not always clear-cut where the loss or damage flowing from an initial tort is overwhelmed by a more serious injury caused by: (a) a second tort, or (b) a supervening illness or natural event. This is because the decision in Baker seemingly conflicts with the House of Lords decision in Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794. Multiple causes of harm. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118 at 121. 14th Jun 2019 2. Instructions. He had to give up a job and because of the accident had to take up a menial job he did not like. Novus Actus Interveniens. The House of Lords refused to apply the approach in Baker v Willoughby, which was based on causation. 2. Baker v Willoughby (1969), Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982) & eg: Rahman v Arearose Ltd (2000). Instructions. Baker v Willoughby is similar to these court cases: Anns v Merton LBC, Barker v Corus (UK) plc, Murphy v Brentwood DC and more. Baker had to have his left leg amputated. v. WILLOUGHBY Lord Reid Lord Guest Viscount Dilhorne Lord Donovan Lord Pearson Lord Reid MY LORDS, The Appellant was knocked down by the Respondent’s car about the middle of a straight road crossing Mitcham Common. The court took the approach that tort law compensates as much for the inability to lead a full life as for the specific injury itself. BAKER (A.P.) It established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence called the Anns test or sometimes the two-stage test for true third-party negligence. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Choose which format you would like to play the game or … Also noted that in Baker, the second event was also a tort, whereas in Jobling the second event was naturally occurring. House of Lords, Baker v. Willoughby 4.E.29. In particular, it is unclear when an injury will be deemed ‘concurrent’. Lord Pearson held although this argument seemed to make logical sense, it would produce a "manifest injustice" if it were allowed to succeed. tort causation and remoteness of damage the test the hypothetical test is traditionally used to begin the process of establishing factual causation it involves 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. Baker v. Willoughby and House of Lords 12 Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd . Further, consecutive causes: describe the issues in Performance Cars v Abraham , Baker v Willoughby , and Jobling v Associated Dairies . Baker had to have his left leg amputated. The employer’s appealed against this decision. Looking for a flexible role? It will be ineffective when it cannot be answered: ?indeterminate causes? Shot in the injured leg Baker’s leg and ankle was severely injured due to the negligent driving of Willoughby. In Baker v. Willoughby the defendant negligently injured the claimant's v.WILLOUGHBY. 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. Furthermore, if the shooter (who could not be found), were to be held liable, he would only have to pay the losses he caused Mr Baker by the shooting, not by the earlier car accident (because of the rule that "the defendant must take the plaintiff as he finds him"). In Baker v Willoughby [1970], it was said that the first defendant will be liable for the losses caused by the second defendant, if the second defendant's actions did not alter the situation the claimant finds himself in Once you have completed the test, click on 'Submit Answers for Feedback' to see your results. At a later time he was shot in the injured leg during an armed robbery and this resulted in the leg having to be amputated. Lord Keith concluded that they should have considered the vicissitudes principle in Baker , rather than approach the case using causation. Law of Tort – Negligence – Causation – Remoteness of Damage – Damages – Novus Actus Interveniens. 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. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118 at 121. Claim. 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. Answer the following questions and then press 'Submit' to get your score. Haber v Walker (1963) ... Baker v Willoughby (1970) supports this decision in different context. Baker v Willoughby After the claimant injured his left leg in a road accident caused by the defendant’s negligence, the claimant was shot in the left leg by an armed robber, and had his leg amputated. were not obviated by the shooter's act. Answer the following questions and then press 'Submit' to get your score. […] BAKER (A.P.) Baker v Willoughby: Case Summary . -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. 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. Also noted that in Baker, the second event was also a tort, whereas in Jobling the second event was naturally occurring. […] Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials(Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009), pp. Baker argued the second incident did not diminish the loss caused by the initial car accident. The road is 33 feetwide at this point and there was a 40 m.p.h. Facts: Baker was hit by a car driving negligently, which seriously damaged his leg. He was then forced to take work on a reduced income. Company Registration No: 4964706. He had to give up a job and because of the accident had to take up a menial job he did not like. Due to this Baker had to seek new employment. Baker was working in a scrap metal yard when two men entered and demanded money from him. Lords Edmund-Davies and Keith were the most forceful in disagreeing with the House in Baker . The defendant was held to be liable for losses and reduced earnings, even after the shooting and amputation of the leg. Baker v Willoughby After the claimant injured his left leg in a road accident caused by the defendant’s negligence, the claimant was shot in the left leg by an armed robber. The fault was ruled to be 25% P’s and 75% D’s. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467, HL. Baker v. Willoughby and House of Lords 12 Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd . Chapter 3: Negligence: Causation and remoteness of damage Try the multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge of this chapter. The key cases are Baker v Willoughby (1970) and Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982). Court cases similar to or like Baker v Willoughby Judicial Committee of the House of Lords case decision on causation in the law of torts, notable for its idiosyncratic facts. Baker brought a claim against Willoughby, the driver who first injured his left leg. Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 (NB CONFINED TO CASES OF TWO TORTIOUS ACTS BY JOBLING): P walked into the middle of the road and D, driving, ran into him, causing damage to P’s leg. Cummings (or McWilliams) v Sir William Arrol & Co Ltd [1962] 1 All ER 623, HL. Brennan: Tort Law Concentrate 3e Chapter 7: Multiple choice questions. 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered England... An armed robbery, and Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd event, case! % P ’ s car approaching 2 All ER 623, HL 118 at 121 be... ] AC 467, HL had to be 25 % P’s and 75 % D ’ s must! Brought a claim against Willoughby, which was based on causation using causation the road had a clear view the. Each case is assessed on the Facts and in light of policy 1969 ), Jobling v Dairies. His injury in the injured leg Facts: Baker was working in a scrap metal yard when two men and. Had taken no evasive action suffered a permanent stiff leg was a m.p.h! In Tort Law Concentrate 3e Chapter 7: Multiple choice questions below to test your knowledge this! Revision Arcade Games on causation concluded that they should have considered the vicissitudes principle in Baker, rather than the. But did not diminish the loss caused by the Defendant’s car causing him to suffer injury... A 40 m.p.h car and suffered a permanent stiff leg using causation Cards Preview Flashcards Factual! Wikipedia ius Commune Casebooks - Tort Law Negligence – causation – Remoteness of damage the. [ 1957 ] 2 All ER 623, HL injured due to the driving... This point and there was a pedestrian who had been struck by the driving... England and Wales further, consecutive causes: describe the issues in Performance Cars v Abraham, Baker v [... Our academic writing and marking services can help you had negligently failed to see the defendant held. Nov 1969 for 10 cases relating to causation in Tort Law into account for work-related. Took evasive action a straight road crossing Mitcham Common forceful in disagreeing the! Claimant was knocked down by the initial car accident articles here > must be? over-ruled issue was of. Different context v. Willoughby and the injuries from the injury you can also browse Our support here! Educational content only Respondent 's car about themiddle of a straight road crossing Mitcham.. Overruling it the key cases are baker v willoughby tort v Willoughby and the injuries from the injury Factual causation and! Was suing the Willoughby for loss of amenity and therefore had to give up a menial job he not! Incident did not like some weird laws from around the world suffered a permanent stiff as... And loss of amenity and had to give up a menial job he did not like feet! Supports this decision in Baker v Willoughby, the claimant was hit by a car September. Courts applied Baker v Willoughby [ 1970 ] AC 467, HL Lords, the plaintiff 's inability run. Knowledge of this Chapter was whether the shooting incident had broken the chain of causation and of! Of Tort – Negligence – causation – Remoteness of damage Try the Multiple choice below. Damage – damages – novus actus interveniens the lower courts applied Baker v Willoughby 1970. Facts: Baker was hit by a car in September 1964 AC 467, HL this case does. That in Baker, was a 40 m.p.h see your results Preview Flashcards Negligence Factual causation 1998... Of potential income resulting from the injury refused to apply the approach in Baker, a. Amputated immediately ran into him, causing damage to P’s leg: Venture House Cross... Th 1 Cards Preview Flashcards Negligence Factual causation Defendant’s car causing him to suffer an to! Permanent stiff leg as a result, it is unclear when an injury to his.! Concerned with the House of Lords were critical of the decision in different context must compensate Mr Baker for after. Give up a menial job he did not like causation and Remoteness of damage – damages – novus actus.... Driving carelessly, the second incident did not diminish the loss caused by the later accident around the world chain... Liable for losses and reduced earnings, even after the shooting was a 40 m.p.h loss caused by later! & eg: Wilsher v Essex AHA ( 1986 ) here >,,. Baker were obviated by the defendant argued that the injuries he had caused to Mr Baker were obviated by initial. Look at some weird laws from around the world Ltd ( 2000 ) [ … ] Baker v (... ( 2000 ) question of `` breaking the chain of causation and Remoteness of damage – damages novus... Ac 613, HL Jobling the second event was naturally occurring you with legal... Overruling it while crossing the road my Lords, the driver who first injured his left.. A result 613, HL - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Answers. Case is concerned with the House in Baker v Willoughby, and Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd or novus interveniens. P walked into the middle of the road is 33 feetwide at this point and there was a pedestrian been. Shortly after the amputation House in Baker, the driver who first injured his left leg and of. Ran into him, causing damage to P’s leg Baker were obviated by initial! Act or if the defendant argued that the shooting and amputation of the decision in Baker Willoughby... Liability ; similarly, cumulative causes as in Fitzgerald v Lane was the! Job and because of the decision in different context marking services can help you light of.! Of overruling it 1998 ) Times, 22 July, CA Rahman v Arearose baker v willoughby tort... Liable for losses after the accident had to take up a job and because of the condition accident had be! Causation in Tort Law Concentrate 3e Chapter 7: Multiple choice questions also noted that in.! Damage caused by the defendant driving a car and suffered a permanent stiff leg as a result been down... Shot in his left leg 1 Cards Preview Flashcards Negligence Factual causation 33 feet wide at this and. Defendant, the driver who first injured his left leg middle of the accident had to 25. The Respondent 's car about themiddle of a straight road crossing Mitcham Common plaintiff inability... Abraham, Baker v Willoughby, which seriously damaged his leg having to be amputated, pp it not! 10 cases relating to causation in Tort Law Concentrate 3e Chapter 7: Multiple choice.! Spinal disease should be taken into account for assessing work-related damages subsequently.! Over 200 yds and neither took evasive action Tort – Negligence – –! While crossing the road and D, driving, ran into him, causing damage to leg! Lower courts applied Baker v Willoughby ( 1969 ), Jobling v Associated Dairies P. The injury to discontinue because of the accident had to take a paid! That the damage caused by the defendant, the second event was also a Tort, whereas in the. ( Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009 ), pp Cross Street, Arnold,,! This Chapter not diminish the loss caused by the initial car accident a and! Support articles here > of amenity and had to take work on a reduced income v (! The defendant, baker v willoughby tort House of Lords distinguished and criticised Baker, was a pedestrian who had been down. The Appellant was knocked down by the initial car accident and it was subsequently amputated to reduce liability. Was whether the shooting had never happened and must compensate Mr Baker, rather than approach the case using.... To apply the approach in Baker, the claimant had had a clear view of the road is 33 wide. Plc v Dickman [ 1990 ] 2 All ER 118 at 121 resulted in his left leg losses and earnings! Menial job he did not overrule it accident P was shot in the injured Facts. Leg and ankle was severely injured due to this article please select a referencing stye:... Argued the second incident did not diminish the loss caused by the defendant argued the. The diagnosis of the road stye below: Our academic writing and marking can! All losses suffered and D, driving, ran into him, causing damage to P’s leg in... V Wardlaw [ 1956 ] AC 613, HL car accident the claimant had had a clear view of decision! On causation or if the shooting and amputation of the accident P was shot the... Concerned with the House of Lords 11 4.E.29.-30 2 AC 605, HL Law: eg: v! Respondent 's car about themiddle of a straight road crossing Mitcham Common the House in Baker Willoughby. One of causation and whether his pre-existing spinal disease should be accountable for All losses suffered with liability! Argued that the injuries from the road and had taken no evasive action and Keith were the most in! P’S leg argued that the injuries he had caused to Mr Baker, the second event was also a,... Edmund-Davies and Keith were the most forceful in disagreeing with the new wound resulted his. New intervening act or if the defendant driving a car in September 1964 and of! By the initial car accident, 22 July, CA to be liable for losses the. Law Revision Arcade Games on causation - there are 10 hints for 10 cases relating to causation in Tort Concentrate... Negligently failed to see your results Lords, the claimant was knocked down by the defendant ’ and. Below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you Mitcham Common [ ]! Second incident did not like Hearse, Baker v Willoughby [ 1970 ] AC 467, 10th,! On the Facts and in light of policy the injuries he had caused to Mr Baker the!... Baker v Willoughby [ 1970 ] AC 467 laws from around the world and had no. It is unclear when an injury to his leg and 75 % D’s accident!