Claimant suffered injury to left leg.
Before trial was victim of armed robbery – gunshot
wounds to left leg.
Left leg had to be amputated.
Defendant argued liability limited to pre-trial loss.
House of Lords rejected this argument.
Person not compensated for physical injury, but loss
he suffers as a result – freedom of movement etc.
Second injury did not diminish this loss.
So why should it be regarded as having superseded the
No reason why present injury could not be seen as
having two concurrent causes.
Say claimant’s original earnings were £x.
After accident were £y
After robbery were £z.
Claimant recovers £x – £y for period up to date of
Claimant then recovers £y – £z from robbers
for period after date of robbery
Only £y – £z, because robbers entitled to
take applicant as they find him.
But if we allow defendant’s argument, then
gap of £x – £y from date of robbery onwards.