A six year old injured his leg in a road accident, and needed daily attention. His mother gave up her job to look after him. The claim for damages on behalf of he boy included the mother’s loss of earnings. This was objected to on the grounds that the boy had incurred no obligation to repay his mother for her services.
Held: the fact that the boy had obtained the necessary care without payment was irrelevant to his claim: ‘The question from what source the plaintiff’s needs have been met, the question who has paid the money or given the services, the question whether or not the plaintiff is or is not under a legal or moral liability to repay, are, so far as the defendant and his liability are concerned, all irrelevant. The plaintiff’s loss, to take this present case, is not the expenditure of money to buy the special boots or to pay for the nursing attention. His loss is the existence of the need for those special boots or for those nursing services, the value of which for purposes of damages – for the purpose of the ascertainment of the amount of his loss – is the proper and reasonable cost of supplying those needs. That, in our judgment, is the key to the problem. So far as the defendant is concerned, the loss is not someone else’s loss. It is the plaintiff’s loss.’
Judges:
Megaw LJ, Davies LJ, Walton LJ
Citations:
[1974] QB 454, [1973] EWCA Civ 2, [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 130, [1973] 3 WLR 514, [1973] 3 All ER 475
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – McAll v Brooks CA 1984
After a road accident the plaintiff hired a car. His insurance brokers provided the car under an arrangement that was alleged to be illegal insurance business and would have prevented them from being subrogated to the plaintiff’s claim for damages . .
Cited – Dimond v Lovell HL 12-May-2000
A claimant sought as part of her damages for the cost of hiring a care whilst her own was off the road after an accident caused by the defendant. She agreed with a hire company to hire a car, but payment was delayed until the claim was settled.
Doubted – Hunt v Severs HL 7-Sep-1994
The tortfeasor, a member of the claimant’s family provided her with voluntary nursing care after the injury. The equivalent cost of that care, was recoverable, but would be held on trust for the carer. The underlying rationale of English Law is to . .
Cited – Giles v Thompson, Devlin v Baslington (Conjoined Appeals) HL 1-Jun-1993
Car hire companies who pursued actions in motorists’ names to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle after an accident, from negligent drivers, were not acting in a champertous and unlawful manner. Lord Mustill said: ‘there exists in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.195963
