Where supervening events might contribute to the personal injury suffered, the proper approach in apportioning compensation in respect of one occasion was in general terms to provide just and sufficient compensation for the injury caused without being excessive. There is no general or universal logical basis for rules in these situations. The possibility of hypothetical future injury should not be given any excess weight in assessing future losses of earnings.
Otton LJ observed that in Jobling, Lord Keith ‘was clear that the rule that he formulated, of ignoring the occurrence of a second tort when awarding damages against a first tortfeasor, could not be justified on any identifiable juristic basis, but rather was a just and practical solution to avoid the barrier to full compensation that would arise if the normal rules were applied to their full extent’.
Judges:
Otton LJ
Citations:
Times 20-Jun-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 187, [2001] QB 272, [2001] PIQR Q3, [2000] 2 WLR 1173, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Med 203, [2000] 3 All ER 138, [2000] IRLR 334
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Heil v Rankin, Rees v Mabco (102) Ltd, Schofield v Saunders and Taylor Ltd and Other cases CA 23-Mar-2000
The Law Commission had recommended that the general level of damages awarded for pain suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury cases should be raised. The Court now considered several cases on the issue.
Held: The court would do so. . .
Distinguished – Chapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby HL 26-Nov-1969
The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. The plaintiff had negligently failed to see the defendant’s car approaching. The defendant had a clear view of the plaintiff prior to the collision, but was . .
Cited – Jobling v Associated Dairies HL 1980
The claimant suffered an accident at work which left him with continuing disabling back pain. Before the trial of his claim he was diagnosed as suffering from a disease, in no way connected with the accident, which would in any event have wholly . .
Cited – Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co HL 13-Feb-1880
Damages or removal of coal under land
User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lawson v Glaves-Smith, Executor of the Estate of Dawes (Deceased) QBD 14-Nov-2006
The claimant sought damages saying that she had been falsely imprisoned, raped and drugged by the defendant who had since died.
Held: The court had only the evidence of the claimant, and must be careful in examining it. On that evidence the . .
Cited – Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2) CA 20-Dec-2002
The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed.
Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment . .
Cited – Soutzos v Asombang and Others ChD 21-Jun-2011
The claimant had obtained a freezing order against the defendants. His claim having been dismissed, the court now considered if and what damages should be paid under the cross-undertaking he had given.
Held: Setting out and applying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Damages
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.147220