Hunt (now Severs) v Severs

The House of Lords held that an injured plaintiff may not recover in damages the monetary value of gratuitous nursing or domestic services rendered by the tortfeasor himself. Damages in negligence are compensatory and the law will not require a tortfeasor to compensate the plaintiff twice over for the same loss. By contrast, the reasonable value of gratuitous services rendered by third-party relatives or friends may be recoverable for the purpose of compensating those carers (and English law should treat such recoveries as held on trust for the carer).

The court also decided that an appellate court should not disturb a trial judge's conventional assessment multiplier for future losses unless a demonstrably more accurate actuarial calculation precisely in point is produced; accordingly the House reinstated the trial judge's multiplier of 14 rather than the Court of Appeal's 15.

The claimant (Hunt, later Severs) was gravely injured in a motorcycle accident caused by the defendant (Severs). The defendant's negligence was admitted. The injuries resulted in paraplegia and extensive care needs. At trial (Mr David Latham Q.C., deputy High Court judge) the claimant was awarded a total of £617,004 which included sums for the defendant's travelling expenses and for past and future care said to have been provided gratuitously by the defendant.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal but increased the multiplier used to assess future losses from 14 to 15, raising the award. The defendant then appealed to the House of Lords.

The issues before the House were (i) whether the claimant could recover damages representing the value of gratuitous services provided by the tortfeasor himself (including travelling expenses for hospital visits), (ii) whether the claimant could recover the value of past and future care provided by the defendant, and (iii) whether the Court of Appeal was right to increase the multiplier to 15.

The House reasoned that damages are compensatory and that where the tortfeasor himself provides gratuitous services it would be unjust and conceptually incoherent to require the tortfeasor to pay the plaintiff the monetary value of those services which the tortfeasor has in effect already provided. The court distinguished recoverable voluntary care by third parties (and noted the Scottish statutory scheme in the Administration of Justice Act 1982, section 8) from services provided by the tortfeasor. The House rejected arguments based on the defendant's insurance as a basis for allowing recovery against the tortfeasor and emphasised that such a change would be a matter for Parliament. On the multiplier the House held that the trial judge's conventional assessment (multiplier 14) should not be displaced by the Court of Appeal's rounding up to 15 on the basis of actuarial tables which were not precisely in point.

Relief sought: reduction of elements in the damages award that related to the defendant's own gratuitous services and travel; appellate issues included recalculation of the award and costs. The House allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal order and varied the trial judge's order accordingly.

Appeal allowed. The House of Lords set aside the Court of Appeal's decision and varied the trial judge's order to reduce the damages by the amount specified in the formal order. The court held that an injured plaintiff cannot recover as damages the monetary value of gratuitous services provided by the tortfeasor himself; by contrast, reasonable remuneration for gratuitous services by third-party relatives or friends may be recoverable (and should be treated as held on trust for the carer). The House also reinstated the trial judge's assessment approach and multiplier (14) for future loss, displacing the Court of Appeal's increase to 15 because the actuarial basis for the increase was not precisely in point.

Trial: Queen's Bench Division (Mr David Latham Q.C. sitting as deputy judge), judgment 15 April 1992 (award £617,004). Court of Appeal (Sir Thomas Bingham M.R., Staughton and Waite L.JJ.), reserved judgment 12 May 1993 [1993] Q.B. 815 — dismissed defendant's appeal but substituted multiplier 15 for 14, increasing the award. Appeal to House of Lords allowed [1994] UKHL 4.