Fletcher v Autocar and Transporters [1968] 2 QB 322
QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES
Facts
The claimant, a chartered quantity surveyor, was driving along when a lorry driven by the defendants’ employee negligently ran into his car. The claimant suffered severe injuries, including extensive brain damage, as a result of which he was entirely dependent on his wife to care for him. Three years after the accident, his wife was no longer able to assist him and he spent the remainder of his life (which was not expected to be shortened by his injuries) in a mental hospital as a paying patient.
At first instance, the judge assessed damages under four heads (special damages, loss of future earnings, additional expenses, and damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity). He then calculated the total sum to be awarded by adding together the figure for each head, without further consideration of whether this final amount was just and reasonable. The defendant appealed the quantum of damages.
Issues
The key question was whether the total figure should be revised if the assessment of individual heads of damage amounted to an ‘exceptionally high’ or ‘daunting’ figure when taken together.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal held that assessment of damages as individual heads of compensation was merely an aid to determine a sum which was fair and reasonable. It was also necessary for the judge to ensure that the final sum awarded was fair and reasonable, particularly by considering the inter-relationship of the heads of assessment in a case such as this where the plaintiff’s life has been transformed and there is a considerable danger of overlapping between the heads of damage. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Fletcher v Autocar and Transporters [1968] 2 QB 322. The case remains good law as a historical authority on the quantification of damages in personal injury claims, particularly regarding the need for courts to ensure that the aggregate award across individual heads of damage is fair and reasonable and avoids overlap. Readers should note, however, that the broader law on personal injury damages has developed substantially since 1968. In particular, the assessment of future losses is now heavily influenced by the Ogden Tables (actuarial tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases, now in their eighth edition), the discount rate applied to lump sum awards (currently set at minus 0.25% under the Civil Liability Act 2018 and the Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2019), and the courts’ approach to damages for loss of amenity and care costs has been refined through many subsequent authorities. The principle in Fletcher itself — that the overall award must be just and reasonable, not merely the arithmetical sum of individual heads — continues to be referenced in quantum assessments, but practitioners and students should consult more recent authorities and current procedural rules for a complete picture of how damages are assessed today.
