Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd
Where a claimant who has been injured by the defendant later develops an unrelated illness that would have caused the same disability, the defendant is not liable for the loss after the illness.
Facts
Mr Jobling injured his back at work in 1973, through the negligence of his employers, which reduced his earning capacity by half. In 1976, before the trial, he was found to be suffering from a spinal disease, unrelated to the accident, which would have made him totally unable to work in any event. The employers argued that they should not be liable for his loss of earnings after the disease developed.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the employers were not liable for the loss of earnings after the onset of the disease. The vicissitudes of life, including natural illness, must be taken into account in assessing damages, because the claimant would have suffered the same loss even without the accident. The House distinguished Baker v Willoughby, which concerned a second tortious injury, but expressed doubts about the reasoning in that case. The defendant's liability is not increased or reduced by events that would have happened anyway.
Related cases on causation
- Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467
- Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20, [2006] 2 AC 572
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
- Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
- Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41, [2005] 1 AC 134
- Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32
- Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 2 AC 176
- Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
