A professional disabled darts player has lost his claim for over £1million in compensation after a judge ruled that the amputation of his leg below the knee was not medically necessary. Aaron Haley had the procedure after suffering a foot injury in a workplace accident with a forklift truck.
The Workplace Accident and Subsequent Amputation
The incident occurred in March 2019 while Mr Haley was working for Wakefield-based cold storage company Newcold Ltd. He sustained a severe crushing injury to his foot when he was hit by an industrial truck. The injury resulted in what the judge described as a 'significant degloving and a burst fracture to the calcaneus', requiring a skin graft and a lengthy stay in hospital.
His former employer agreed to pay compensation for this initial injury. However, the case took a dramatic turn when Mr Haley, who now competes as a pro darts player under the name Aaron 'The Rattler' Haley, opted to have his leg amputated below the knee in March of last year. This decision drastically increased the potential value of his damages payout from around £500,000 to more than £1million.
The Court's Scrutiny and Ruling
Newcold Ltd contested the increased claim, arguing that the amputation was an unnecessary procedure. The company presented surveillance evidence to the court, which showed Mr Haley walking 'normally' and engaging in various physical activities in the weeks leading up to his operation.
Judge Darren Walsh, presiding at Wakefield County Court, ruled that Mr Haley could not be compensated for the amputation. In his judgment, he stated the surgery was 'not necessary on clinical grounds' but was instead the claimant's own choice. The judge highlighted that Mr Haley was the one who first mentioned amputation during NHS appointments and proceeded without exhausting all other treatment options.
Surveillance footage played a crucial role in the case. It showed Mr Haley participating in activities like tenpin bowling, crazy golf, and snooker. Notably, he regularly played the combat simulation game Airsoft—a hobby experts described as 'unusual' for someone considering an amputation due to unbearable pain. The footage also revealed that he only used a crutch on the day he was due to see a doctor for his damages claim, and even then, he was seen holding it in the wrong hand.
The Outcome and Unanswered Questions
As a result of the ruling, Aaron Haley is not entitled to the seven-figure payout for the amputation. He is, however, still eligible to receive damages for the initial foot injury. His lawyers had estimated this claim to be worth around £500,000 after a 20% reduction for his own contributory negligence in the accident.
Judge Walsh acknowledged the 'elephant in the room'—the mystery of why Mr Haley would undergo such a drastic procedure if it was not medically needed. However, as the defence did not present a case regarding his motivation, the judge made no finding on the subject. The ruling concludes that the amputation was a 'supervening event' caused by the claimant's own conduct, which broke the chain of causation from the employer's original negligence.
