Future losses

Recoverable future losses

The most common future losses are:

  1. loss of earnings

  2. loss of pension

  3. cost of care and services

  4. cost of treatment and aids

  5. cost of accommodation

For further guidance, see Practice Notes:

  1. Recoverable future losses

  2. Other heads of future loss

  3. Aids and equipment

  4. Valuing serious brain injury claims

The multiplicand and the multiplier

Despite the availability of periodical payments orders, the great majority of personal injury cases are concluded with the award of a single lump sum. The future loss calculation must take account of the fact that all of the damages are received at once and before (for example) any earnings would have been received. The claimant is able to invest the funds until they are needed and they retain any return in the meantime. This makes it necessary for the damages to be discounted for accelerated (or early) receipt. To achieve this the court will calculate a multiplicand and apply a multiplier.

The starting point in assessing a future head of loss is to calculate the multiplicand, which is simply

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents