Donnelly v Joyce
[1974] QB 454; [1973] 3 WLR 514; [1973] 3 All ER 475;
[1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 130; (1973) 117 SJ 488
NEGLIGENCE, DAMAGES, PERSONAL INJURIES, LOSS OF EARNINGS, LOSS OF WAGES, NURSING SERVICES, INFANT PLAINTIFF, CHILDREN, NURSING
Facts
As a child, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his right leg in a road traffic accident which was the defendant’s fault. Although the leg was not broken, there was considerable loss of skin and extensive skin grafting was necessary afterwards. The plaintiff was in hospital for three months and then he had to visit the hospital on a daily basis for a considerable time afterwards. The plaintiff had to wear a surgical boot and there was a possibility that there could be a considerable recurrent loss of skin throughout his life. As a result, he could not participate in games. His leg needed special bathing and dressing for a period of six months after the plaintiff’s discharge from hospital. To look after him, the plaintiff’s mother left her part-time job for which she was paid. £5.66 a week. The plaintiff was awarded £4000 as general damages and £147 as the mother’s loss of earnings for a period of six months. The defendant appealed the decision on the mother’s loss of earnings.
Issues
Given that the plaintiff’s mother has no direct cause of action against the defendant, is the plaintiff prevented from recovering his mother’s lost wages due to nursing him, which was necessary because of the defendant’s wrongdoing?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
(1) An infant plaintiff may recover his mother’s loss of wages through nursing him due to the defendant’s wrongdoing, despite the fact that the plaintiff’s mother has no direct cause of action against the defendant.
(2) As the loss to the plaintiff included the existence of a need for nursing services provided by his mother, he is entitled to recover her loss of wages.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary is accurate as a statement of the decision in Donnelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454. However, readers should be aware that the legal basis articulated in Donnelly v Joyce — that the claimant’s need for the services is the relevant loss — was subsequently reconsidered by the House of Lords in Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 AC 350. The House of Lords preferred an alternative analysis: the claimant recovers damages for gratuitous nursing care as a trustee on behalf of the carer who provides the services, not simply because the claimant has a ‘need’. In Hunt v Severs, the House also held (controversially) that where the tortfeasor is the same person who provides the gratuitous care, no damages can be recovered under this head, as it would be inconsistent to require the defendant to pay into a fund held for their own benefit. The practical outcome in cases not involving a carer who is also the tortfeasor remains broadly similar, but the theoretical underpinning articulated in Donnelly v Joyce no longer represents the law. Students should treat Hunt v Severs as the leading authority on this point and read Donnelly v Joyce in that context.
