Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1981] UKHL 3

Mr Jobling injured his back at work due to his employer's negligence, reducing his earning capacity by 50%. Before trial, he developed unrelated myelopathy rendering him totally unfit for work. The House of Lords held that this supervening illness must be taken into account when assessing damages for loss of earnings, distinguishing Baker v Willoughby.

Facts

In January 1973, the appellant, Mr Jobling, slipped on the floor of a meat refrigerator at his workplace due to his employer’s breach of statutory duty. He sustained a prolapsed intervertebral disc causing back pain and reducing his earning capacity by approximately 50%. In 1976, before his claim came to trial, Mr Jobling developed cervical spondylotic myelopathy, a condition wholly unrelated to his 1973 accident and not present in any latent form at the time of the accident. This myelopathy rendered him totally unfit for work from the end of September 1976 onwards.

Issues

The central issue was whether, in assessing damages for the tortious injury, account should be taken of a supervening illness which arose after the accident but before trial and which produced a greater degree of incapacity than the original injury. Specifically, should the respondents be liable for loss of earnings beyond the point when the myelopathy rendered the appellant totally incapacitated?

The Appellant’s Argument

The appellant relied on Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467, arguing that supervening events should not reduce the tortfeasor’s liability. He sought to distinguish between conditions latent at the time of the tort and those with inception after the tort, submitting that only the former should affect damages.

The Respondent’s Argument

The respondents argued that the supervening myelopathy put an end to their legal liability for any loss of earnings which would otherwise have resulted from the 1973 accident, relying on the principle that damages should reflect actual circumstances at trial.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision. Their Lordships declined to extend Baker v Willoughby to cases involving supervening non-tortious illness.

Lord Wilberforce

Lord Wilberforce expressed difficulty in applying pure common law principles to modern cases involving complex social insurance systems. He accepted the ‘vicissitudes’ argument as providing a workable rule, noting that illness is among the contingencies normally considered when assessing damages for future loss of earnings.

Lord Edmund-Davies

Lord Edmund-Davies criticised the reliance in Baker v Willoughby on Harwood v Wyken Colliery Co [1913] 2 KB 158, a workmen’s compensation case operating under entirely different statutory principles. He found the distinction between conditions present at the date of tort and those arising subsequently to be irrelevant in principle and productive of confusion in practice.

Lord Russell of Killowen

Lord Russell emphasised that the vicissitudes of life include the possibility of developing disease which will shorten working life, and when such development occurs before trial, knowledge must replace estimation in assessing damages.

Lord Keith of Kinkel

Lord Keith held that the majority in Baker v Willoughby were mistaken in approaching the problem wholly from causation. He distinguished between supervening tortious acts and supervening illness, accepting that while the former might not reduce damages (to ensure full compensation from successive tortfeasors), the latter properly falls within the vicissitudes principle.

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Lord Bridge rejected the appellant’s attempt to limit the vicissitudes principle to factors inherent in the plaintiff at the time of the tort. He stated that to hold the tortfeasor liable for notional continuing loss of earnings when supervening illness would have extinguished earnings anyway would put the plaintiff in a better position than if he had never suffered the tortious injury.

Implications

This decision clarifies that supervening non-tortious events such as illness or accident, which occur after the original tort but before trial, must be taken into account when assessing damages for loss of earnings. The court should not speculate when it knows the facts. However, the House left open whether Baker v Willoughby remains correct authority where the supervening event is itself tortious, recognising that successive torts may require different treatment to ensure full compensation. The case demonstrates the courts’ recognition that damages assessment operates within a broader framework of social insurance and compensation schemes.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal's decision was affirmed, holding that the supervening myelopathy must be taken into account in assessing damages for loss of earnings, thereby limiting the respondent's liability to the period before the myelopathy rendered the appellant totally unfit for work.

Source: Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1981] UKHL 3