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 enable the voluntary carer to receive proper recompense for his or her services: ‘Thus in both England and Scotland, the law now ensures that an injured plaintiff may recover the reasonable value of gratuitous services rendered to him by way of voluntary care by a member of his family . . [T]he underlying rationale of the English law . . is to enable the voluntary carer to receive proper recompense for his or her services.’ The policy considerations which underlie the exceptions were ‘well understood’ . . ‘But I find it difficult to see what considerations of public policy can justify a requirement that the tortfeasor himself should compensate the plaintiff twice over for the self-same loss. If the loss in question is a direct pecuniary loss (eg loss of wages), Hussain’s case is clear authority that the defendant employer, as the tortfeasor who makes good the loss either voluntarily or contractually, thereby mitigates his liability in damages pro tanto.’
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Independent 05-May-1994, Times 02-May-1994, Gazette 07-Sep-1994, [1994] 2 AC 350, [1994] UKHL 4, [1994] 2 All ER 385
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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, . .
Doubted – Donnelly v Joyce CA 18-May-1973
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 . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – 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, . .
Cited – Willbye (By Her Mother and Next Friend) v Gibbons CA 19-Mar-2003
Both parties appealed against the lower court’s orders. The claimant, a child was injured by a car driven by the defendant, who had been found 25% responsible. The claimant had suffered head injuries, and subsequently epilepsy.
Held: The award . .
Cited – Giambrone and others v JMC Holidays Ltd (Formerly Sunworld Holidays Ltd) QBD 20-Dec-2002
. .
Cited – Giambrone and others v Sunworld Holidays Ltd CA 18-Feb-2004
Many holidaymakers had suffered gastro-enteritis and sued for compensation. They had sought a sum to reflect the value of gratuitous care.
Held: Save in more serious cases, awards for children suffering gastro-enteritis and cared for by their . .
Cited – Pirelli 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 . .
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.
Cited – Dobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another CA 29-Jan-2009
The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Damages
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.81534