General damages

General damages are those damages which cannot be precisely calculated and an assessment of an appropriate sum is made. They include:

  1. non-pecuniary loss (past and future) for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, handicap in the labour market, loss of congenial employment, loss of convenience etc

  2. future pecuniary loss, eg future loss of earnings, future care etc

In practice, the term general damages is often used to refer only to pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA). Although this is the most common head of general damages in personal injury claims, it is not the only one. Care must therefore be taken to ensure that both parties are aware of exactly what is being referred to, particularly during the course of settlement negotiations.

This overview deals with non-pecuniary general damages only. For an overview of future loss, which includes pecuniary loss, see: Future losses—overview.

Pain, suffering and loss of amenity

A claimant is entitled to recover damages for any PSLA caused by an accident. The pain and suffering element of the award compensates the claimant for all past, present and future physical and psychiatric

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