Rowe v Dolman: CA 23 Jul 2008

The claimant had been very severely injured in a road accident. The court was asked to determine the effect on his life expectancy, the experts had diverged as to the appropriate range of life expectancy.
Held: The judge had assessed the expert evidence, and his findings were in essence ones of fact and not of law, and therefore any appeal failed. The judge had ordered periodical payments rather than a lump sum. The claimant said that the sum generated would never be sufficient to provide for his care. However the judge had exercised a discretion, and it had not been shown that that discretion had been used wrongly.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, May LJ, Hallett LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1040
Bailii
Damages Act 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRowe v Dolman QBD 16-Nov-2007
. .

Cited by:
CitedPreston v City Electrical Factors Ltd and Another QBD 13-Nov-2009
The claimant had received andpound;100,000 in interim payments on his personal injury claim, and now sought a further similar sum.
Held: The claim was thought substantial, but the defendants said that any final award would include an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.276659