Hunt v Severs

Damages for negligence are compensatory. An injured person may recover the reasonable value of necessary care provided gratuitously by a relative or friend, but holds the award on trust for the carer. Its central purpose is to recompense the carer, not to compensate an abstract need.

The injured person cannot recover the value of services provided by the tortfeasor. Such an award would require the tortfeasor to pay twice for the same loss. The defendant’s insurance does not affect the measure of liability.

An appellate court should not adjust a trial judge’s conventional multiplier by actuarial calculation unless the calculation is precisely applicable and demonstrably more accurate.

The respondent suffered grave injuries, including paraplegia, while riding as a pillion passenger on a motorcycle negligently driven by the appellant. The appellant later became her husband and provided beneficial hospital visits and substantial past and future care.

A deputy High Court judge awarded £617,004, including the appellant’s travelling expenses and the value of his care. The Court of Appeal, in [1993] Q.B. 815, dismissed his appeal and increased the multiplier for future losses from 14 to 15.

The appellant challenged the recovery of expenses and care supplied by the tortfeasor and the appellate increase in the multiplier.

Lord Bridge of Harwich delivered the leading speech. Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Nolan agreed with his reasons.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously.

2. Per Lord Bridge, damages for negligence are purely compensatory. A claimant should recover no more and no less than the loss suffered. Benefits from insurance purchased by the claimant and third-party benevolence are established exceptions to the rule against double recovery. Those policies provide no justification for requiring the tortfeasor to compensate the claimant twice for the same loss.

3. Per Lord Bridge, the English rule allowing recovery for gratuitous care is directed to recompensing the voluntary carer. The claimant therefore holds the damages on trust for that carer. The House approved Lord Denning MR’s approach in Cunningham v Harrison [1973] Q.B. 942. It rejected the broader rationale in Donnelly v Joyce [1974] Q.B. 454 that the claimant’s need was the loss and that the source meeting it was irrelevant.

4. Per Lord Bridge, a claim for the tortfeasor’s own care was consequently unsustainable. The tortfeasor could not be required to pay the claimant for services when the claimant would hold the award for that same tortfeasor. The same conclusion governed the travelling expenses incurred through the appellant’s hospital visits.

5. Per Lord Bridge, the existence of liability insurance could not enlarge the tortfeasor’s common law liability. Making insurance relevant to the measure of damages would be a novel and radical change for the legislature.

6. Per Lord Bridge, an appellate court may replace a conventionally assessed multiplier by reference to actuarial calculations only when the calculation is precisely in point and demonstrably more accurate. A medical estimate of 25 years’ life expectancy did not make future loss a simple arithmetical exercise or eliminate allowance for life’s contingencies. The trial judge’s multiplier of 14 disclosed no error.

7. The House set aside the Court of Appeal’s order and reduced the damages by £89,936. The cause was remitted to the Queen’s Bench Division. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, subject to the stated £20,000 limit.

1. House of Lords: Allowed the appellant’s appeal unanimously, set aside the Court of Appeal’s order and varied the trial order by reducing damages by £89,936. The cause was remitted to the Queen’s Bench Division.

2. Court of Appeal: In [1993] Q.B. 815, dismissed the defendant’s appeal concerning travelling expenses and gratuitous care. It allowed the claimant’s cross-appeal to the extent of substituting a multiplier of 15 for 14, increasing damages by £20,013.

3. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: On 15 April 1992, a deputy High Court judge awarded £617,004, including travelling expenses and the value of past and future care provided by the defendant. He used a multiplier of 14 for relevant future losses.