Daly v General Steam Navigation Co Ltd
[1981] 1 WLR 120; [1981] 1 WLR 120;
[1980] 3 All ER 696; [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 415; (1981) 125 SJ 100
PERSONAL INJURY, DAMAGES, CALCULATION, LOSS OF EARNINGS, FUTURE LOSS, AWARD OF DAMAGES, PROPER MEASURE FOR DAMAGES,
COST OF EMPLOYING DOMESTIC HELP
Facts
The plaintiff who was a housewife, was a passenger in the defendant’s vessel. She was injured in an accident and had to be treated over a long period of time both in and out of hospital. The plaintiff became partially incapable of undertaking her housekeeping duties and ran her home with the assistance of her husband who lost £930 from part-time employment earnings as a result. The plaintiff did not employ home help. Altogether, she was awarded £21 116 in damages, including £2,691 for her current partial loss of housekeeping capacity, £8,736 for her future partial loss of housekeeping capacity and £8,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The defendants appealed the awards for loss of housekeeping capacity.
Issues
(1) Is the award for future partial loss of housekeeping capacity a proper measure of the damages to the plaintiff caused by the injury, given that she might not use this award to remedy her partial loss of housekeeping capacity?
(2) What is the correct measure for the current loss of housekeeping capacity of the plaintiff – the cost of employing home help or her husband’s lost earnings?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
(1) The award for the future partial loss of housekeeping capacity is the proper measure of the damages for the future partial loss of housekeeping capacity even if the award might not be used for that purpose.
(2) Applying Donnelly v Joyce [1973] QB 454, the plaintiff is entitled to claim her husband’s loss of income despite the fact that he does not have a direct cause of action against the defendant. The correct measure for the current loss of housekeeping capacity is the income that the plaintiff’s husband lost, not the cost of employing someone to provide home help, which the plaintiff did not do.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the decision in Daly v General Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 120. However, readers should be aware of an important subsequent development affecting the second principle discussed in this case.
The case applies the reasoning from Donnelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454, which held that the need created by the defendant’s wrong is the measure of the plaintiff’s loss, allowing recovery of a carer’s costs or lost earnings as the plaintiff’s own loss. That reasoning was subsequently overruled by the House of Lords in Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 AC 350. In Hunt v Severs, the House of Lords held that the true basis of recovery for gratuitous care is that damages are held on trust for the carer, and crucially that a claimant cannot recover in respect of care provided gratuitously by the tortfeasor themselves. Although Hunt v Severs did not directly overrule Daly on its own facts (since the carer there was not the tortfeasor), the theoretical underpinning of the decision — drawn from Donnelly v Joyce — no longer represents good law. The current legal basis for such awards is the trust analysis in Hunt v Severs. Students should therefore treat the reasoning in this case with caution and read it alongside Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 AC 350.
