Hunt v Severs: CA 13 May 1993

The plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant provided gratuitous nursing care and other assistance to the plaintiff. They married each other.
Held: Where the Plaintiff was voluntarily cared for by the Tortfeasor, she may still eligible for damages for the amount that care would have cost her, had she had to buy it: ‘Where services are voluntarily rendered by a tortfeasor in caring for the plaintiff from motives of affection or duty they should in our opinion be regarded as in the same category as services rendered voluntarily by a third party, or charitable gifts, or insurance payments. They are adventitious benefits, which for policy reasons are not to be regarded as diminishing the plaintiff’s loss. On the facts of the present case the judge’s decision was not in our view contrary to principle or authority and it was fortified by what we regard as compelling considerations of public policy. We consider that he reached the right conclusion and would accordingly dismiss the defendant’s appeal.’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Independent 13-May-1993, Times 13-May-1993
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed toHunt 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 by:
CitedATH and another (Executors of the Estate of M, decd) v MS CA 11-Jun-2002
The claimants were the children of the deceased, seeking damages following the death of their mother. At the time of the death they were not living with their father but moved to live with him after the death. They claimed damages for the services . .
Appeal fromHunt 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 . .
CitedPirelli General Plc and others v Gaca CA 26-Mar-2004
The claimant was awarded damages from his employers, who claimed that the benefits received by the claimant from an insurance policy to which the defendants had contributed should be set off against the claim.
Held: McCamley was no longer good . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.81536