Cook v JL Kier and Co [1970] 1 WLR 774
DUTY OF CARE– QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES
Facts
The claimant was a foreman who suffered severe brain damage when a spanner was dropped on to his head from a height whilst he was working at a site occupied by the defendant company. As a result of this, he suffered various personal injuries including sensory impairment, sexual impotence, multiple physical impairments, and a heightened risk of developing epilepsy in the future. The defendant admitted liability and the claimant was awarded damages for his loss of future earnings for a period of eight years, and an additional award of £3,000 for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity. The claimant appealed, arguing that the quantum of damages was too low.
Issues
The issue was whether the award of damages should take account of the claimant’s sexual impotence. A further issue was whether it was appropriate to award loss of earnings for only eight years given that the claimant was only 41 at the time of the trial.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that the multiplier of eight years for loss of future earnings was inadequate where the claimant was aged 41. This was increased to a multiplier of 10 years and the sum of damages for loss of future earnings was increased accordingly. Further, it was held that the award of £3,000 for loss of amenities was too low and increased this figure to £7,000. In particular, this increase was to reflect the sexual impotence which also affected the claimant’s wife (who could not claim damages in her own right for loss of consortium).
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Cook v JL Kier and Co [1970] 1 WLR 774. The case remains a valid historical authority on the quantification of damages for personal injury, particularly regarding the selection of multipliers for loss of future earnings and the assessment of general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity.
Readers should be aware of several important developments since 1970. First, the approach to calculating multipliers has been substantially refined. Following the Wells v Wells [1999] 1 AC 345 decision and the introduction of the Ogden Tables (now in their 8th edition), courts use actuarial tables and a prescribed discount rate rather than the relatively broad judicial estimates seen in cases of this era. The discount rate applicable in England and Wales is currently set at minus 0.25% under the Civil Liability Act 2018, as reviewed by the Lord Chancellor in 2019. Second, the point that a spouse cannot claim in their own right for loss of consortium (noted at the end of the summary) reflects the pre-Administration of Justice Act 1982 position; that Act abolished the action for loss of consortium entirely, so this aspect of the case is now of historical interest only. The case is therefore useful for understanding the development of damages principles but should not be relied upon for current quantification methodology.
