Darts Professional Loses Seven-Figure Compensation Bid
A professional darts player has been denied a compensation payout exceeding £1 million after a High Court judge determined that his decision to have his leg amputated was made without sufficient medical justification.
Aaron Haley, who competes under the name Aaron 'The Rattler' Haley, saw his potential damages claim dramatically increase after undergoing surgery to remove his leg below the knee in March 2024. However, his former employer successfully challenged the enhanced claim, presenting evidence that questioned the necessity of the procedure.
The Workplace Accident and Subsequent Amputation
The case originated from a serious workplace incident in March 2019 when Mr Haley suffered a crushing foot injury while employed by Wakefield-based cold storage company Newcold Ltd. The accident occurred when he was struck by a forklift truck, resulting in what Judge Darren Walsh described as "significant degloving and a burst fracture to the calcaneus."
This initial injury required a skin graft and an extended hospital stay. While experts acknowledged a small chance that such an injury could eventually lead to amputation, the court heard that Mr Haley himself first raised the possibility during NHS appointments, rather than medical professionals recommending it.
Newcold Ltd had initially agreed to compensate Mr Haley for his original injury, with estimates placing this claim around £500,000 after a 20% reduction for his contributory negligence. However, following his amputation, the total claim escalated to well over £1 million.
Secret Footage Contradicts Claim of 'Unbearable Pain'
The turning point in the case came when Newcold Ltd presented secretly filmed surveillance evidence showing Mr Haley engaging in various physical activities in the months leading up to his amputation.
Judge Walsh noted that footage from just over two months before the operation showed Mr Haley "walking casually and normally" during a visit to Leeds Police Station. Other recordings depicted him playing crazy golf and "moving freely," while further evidence revealed he regularly participated in Airsoft games - a physically demanding combat simulation activity involving quick movements and direction changes.
Remarkably, the court heard that Mr Haley continued playing Airsoft on a weekly basis right up until his surgery, with experts describing this as an "unusual hobby" for someone considering amputation due to unbearable pain.
The judge also highlighted that Mr Haley was only seen using a crutch on one occasion before his operation - coincidentally on the day he was travelling to a medical examination related to his compensation claim. Even then, he was observed holding the crutch in his right hand rather than the left, which would have provided better support for his injured right foot.
Judge's Ruling on 'Supervening Event'
In his judgment, Judge Walsh concluded that Mr Haley's condition had improved to the point where he was "effectively functioning normally" in the weeks before the amputation. He determined that the procedure was "unnecessary on clinical grounds" and represented a voluntary choice rather than a medical necessity.
"The claimant's action of amputation, therefore, was deliberate and was not involuntary in the sense of being caused as a consequence of the position in which the defendant's negligence had left him," Judge Walsh stated.
He continued: "Given that I am satisfied that the claimant had improved and was effectively functioning normally in the months and weeks prior to amputation, his conduct in seeking amputation is so wholly unreasonable and/or of such overwhelming impact, that it eclipses the defendant's wrongdoing and breaks the chain of causation."
While acknowledging the "elephant in the room" regarding why someone would undergo an unnecessary amputation, the judge noted that the defendant had not presented a case about Mr Haley's motivation, and therefore he made no finding on this aspect.
The ruling means that while Mr Haley remains entitled to compensation for his initial injury, he cannot claim additional damages related to the amputation, resulting in the loss of a seven-figure payout.
