## Facts

- Mr. Spencer, the claimant, suffered a severe injury while employed by Wincanton Holdings, resulting in the amputation of his leg.
- Following the injury, Mr. Spencer developed alcohol dependency, which further worsened his condition.
- It was undisputed that Wincanton Holdings had breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe working environment, directly leading to Mr. Spencer’s injury.
- The main factual dispute centered on whether the claimant’s subsequent alcohol dependency and related actions were attributable to the original injury and whether these actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
- Medical evidence indicated that the physical and psychological effects of the injury contributed to Mr. Spencer’s alcohol abuse.

## Issues

1. Whether Mr. Spencer’s alcohol dependency was a foreseeable consequence of his workplace injury.
2. Whether the claimant’s failure to adequately address his alcohol dependency could be classified as contributory negligence, justifying a reduction in damages.
3. To what extent the claimant’s duty to mitigate loss affected the calculation of damages in the context of severe physical and psychological injury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found that Mr. Spencer’s alcohol dependency was a consequence of the injury and resulting lifestyle changes.
- While the injury influenced the claimant’s actions, the court determined he still had a responsibility to seek treatment and take steps to mitigate his injuries.
- The court ruled the claimant’s conduct was not wholly unreasonable, taking into account the severity of his injury and psychological factors.
- Damages were reduced by 20% to reflect contributory negligence, as the claimant bore partial responsibility for the exacerbation of his condition.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant’s breach of duty leading to injury creates liability for foreseeable consequences arising from that injury.
- Contributory negligence can be established where a claimant’s own actions contribute to the ongoing harm or exacerbation of injuries, under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
- The duty to mitigate loss requires the claimant to take reasonable steps, judged objectively, to minimize harm resulting from the defendant’s breach.
- Reasonableness of a claimant’s conduct post-injury is evaluated by considering the claimant’s circumstances and capacity, with particular weight given to medical evidence concerning psychological and physical effects.
- The assessment of causal connection and foreseeability between the defendant’s breach and subsequent claimant actions is central to the apportionment of damages.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Spencer v Wincanton Holdings [2009] EWCA Civ 1404 held that while Mr. Spencer’s conduct after his injury was influenced by its effects, he retained some responsibility for mitigating further harm. Accordingly, his damages were reduced by 20% for contributory negligence, underscoring the balance between personal responsibility and foreseeable consequences in negligence claims.
