## Facts

- Mr. Baker sustained an injury to his left leg due to Mr. Willoughby’s negligent driving, resulting in reduced mobility and loss of earning capacity.
- Before the trial regarding the initial injury, Mr. Baker was shot in the same injured leg during an armed robbery, necessitating amputation.
- The armed robbery was an independent, intervening tortious act.
- The sequence of events raised the issue of whether Mr. Willoughby’s liability was reduced or extinguished due to the later amputation caused by the separate incident, or if he remained responsible for the ongoing losses attributable to the first injury.

## Issues

1. Whether the liability of the original tortfeasor (Mr. Willoughby) is diminished or extinguished by a subsequent independent tortious act (the shooting) that worsened the claimant’s injury.
2. Whether the chain of causation from the first tort is broken by a supervening event.
3. What exceptions, if any, exist to the general rule regarding liability for subsequent events affecting the same injury.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the later tortious act of shooting did not reduce Mr. Willoughby’s liability for the continuing consequences of his initial negligence.
- Mr. Willoughby remained responsible for the claimant’s reduced mobility and earning capacity, as the later amputation did not “cure” but rather compounded the original injury.
- The shooting did not constitute a break in the chain of causation regarding the consequences of the original injury.
- The principle established was that a subsequent tortious event does not relieve the initial tortfeasor of liability for the ongoing effects of the original harm.

## Legal Principles

- When there are concurrent tortious causes resulting in the same injury, each tortfeasor is liable for their respective impact, with the original tortfeasor remaining responsible for ongoing losses linked to the initial injury.
- The chain of causation is not broken by a subsequent, independent tort affecting the same injury.
- Exceptions to the original tortfeasor’s continued liability include situations where a subsequent event shortens the claimant’s life or improves their condition, in which case compensation may be reduced accordingly.
- The mechanism causing the injury's final state is less important than the overall severity and duration of loss attributable to the original tort.
- Contrasting later authority in Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794 established that a non-tortious supervening event (a vicissitude of life) can break the chain of causation and limit damages, distinguishing non-tortious from tortious intervening acts.

## Conclusion

Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 confirmed that a subsequent tortious act worsening an existing injury does not reduce the initial tortfeasor’s liability for continuing loss, unless specific exceptions apply. The case remains significant for clarifying the rules of causation and compensation in tort law, though later distinguished by Jobling v Associated Dairies in circumstances involving non-tortious supervening events.


Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 (HL)