Cassell v Riverside Health Authority
284 words (1 pages) Case Summary
14th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team
Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law
Cassell v Riverside Health Authority  PIQR Q168
QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES – LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
The claimant had been injured at birth due to the negligence of the defendant health authority, which had been responsible for the care of his mother during pregnancy and delivery. The disabilities caused by this meant that he was unable to work throughout his life. His family members had excelled academically and had enjoyed highly successful careers in well paid professional jobs. It was considered highly likely that the claimant would have had similar abilities and would also have enjoyed such a career but for his disabilities. At the age of 8, the claimant sought to recover damages in negligence from the defendant for his loss of earning capacity.
The principle question for the Court of Appeal was the correct approach to the assessment of damages for child claimants who had not had the opportunity for any career.
The Court held that the abilities and earning capacity of the claimant ‘s family members should be taken into account in determining the likely earning capacity of the claimant which had been lost as a result of the defendant ‘s negligence. The ability of the family was indicative that the claimant was likely to possess ‘artistic and entrepreneurial genes’, which should be taken into consideration in determining the multiplicand for the quantification. In this case, a figure over twice the national average wage was used to calculate the child claimant’s loss of earning capacity.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
Related ContentJurisdictions / Tags
Content relating to: "UK Law"
UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.
Murphy v Brentwood District Council
The defendant local authority had negligently approved plans for the footings of a house (a task which fell within its responsibility in accordance with the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936). The claimant purchased the property, but some time afterwards it began to subside as a result of defects in the footings....
Cases Involving Bare Contracts Between Parties
'Nudum' is the Latin word for nude/bare, while Pactum means a formal agreement or a contract. Thus 'Nudum Pactum' stands ......