Man who amputated leg after fork lift crash loses £1m compensation bid amid ‘mystery’ surgery

A judge threw out Mr Haley’s compensation claim after he found that the amputee was not ‘sufficiently disabled’ or in enough pain to warrant having his leg amputated, with the judge ruling the surgery a ‘mystery’

A man who was hit by a forklift at work lost a £1million compensation claim – after a judge ruled his amputation was ‘unnecessary’ and a ‘mystery’.

Aaron Haley sued his former employer, cold storage company Newcold Ltd, after he was hit by an industrial truck in March 2019 and sustained a significant injury to his foot.

The Wakefield-based company agreed to pay out £500,000 for the injury but contested an increased claim of £1million brought after Mr Haley opted to have his leg amputated below the knee in 2024.

They argued the operation was ‘unnecessary’ as Mr Haley – who since his injury has become a professional darts player under the name Aaron ‘The Rattler’ Haley – was not deemed sufficiently disabled or in enough pain to warrant it.

During a three-day trial earlier this year, Wakefield County Court heard Mr Haley had suffered a serious crushing injury to his foot when he was hit by a forklift at work.

The accident resulted in ‘significant degloving and a burst fracture to the calcaneus’ and required a skin graft and a lengthy stay in hospital.

The court heard that, although the risk was low, experts agreed there was a small chance that an injury like Mr Haley’s could result in an amputation.

Judge Darren Walsh said: “It is the claimant’s case that, in short, as time moved on, that low risk materialised.

“He asserts that the extent and frequency of pain, which at times, had become “unbearable”, along with restriction of movement or lack of function, and consequent restrictions in his social and work life, rendered the amputation necessary.”

However, Judge Walsh agreed with Newcold Ltd after evidence was presented that showed Mr Haley supposedly walking ‘normally’ before the amputation and the fact he regularly played Airsoft – a physical activity similar to paintballing – in the weeks leading up to his operation.

Judge Walsh found that surveillance evidence secretly shot before Mr Haley’s leg was removed showed he had undergone a procedure that was “unnecessary on clinical grounds” and was instead of his own choice.

The court heard that the question as to why Mr Haley had his leg removed remains a mystery.

Judge Walsh said: “I accept that the elephant in the room, of course, is quite why the claimant would undergo a procedure that was not necessary.

“However, the defendant has not pleaded a positive case as to the claimant’s motivation. Accordingly, beyond that it was not motivated by pain and function as asserted, I make no finding as to the claimant’s motivation.”

In his conclusion, Judge Walsh accepted Mr Haley had not made a complete recovery.

However, he found that Mr Haley’s condition had improved to the extent that he was ‘effectively functioning normally’ in the months and weeks prior to his amputation.

Judge Walsh said: “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.

“Accordingly, I am satisfied that the effective cause of the amputation was not the accident but the claimant’s own conduct, which I consider amounts to a supervening event.

“Put a different way, 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.”

For the latest breaking news and stories from across the globe from the Daily Star, sign up for our newsletter by clicking here.