小小小小美 2021-5-8 00:35
有人可以幫忙解釋 為什麼 the second accident 不是 new intervening act？？
Baker v Willoughby [1970]
Facts: The negligent driving by Willoughby caused serious injury to Baker's leg and caused him mobility problems. Couple weeks after the road accidents, Baker involved in an armed robbery at his workplace and injured the same leg and subsequently amputated
Held: The defendant remained liable for the loss of amenity and lower earning capacity even after the amputation
仲夏灰牛牛 2021-5-9 06:17
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. Thus, he was still liable as if the shooting had never happened and must compensate Mr Baker for losses after the amputation.
Ratio: when there are two accidents that are consecutive and contribute to the same injury, the original defendant would be liable for the overall injury.