Hunt v Severs [1994] UKHL 4 (28 April 1994)

A woman severely injured in a motorcycle accident driven by her partner (later husband) claimed damages including the value of care he provided. The House of Lords held that a plaintiff cannot recover damages for gratuitous care services rendered by the tortfeasor himself, as such damages must be held on trust for the carer.

Facts

The plaintiff was gravely injured on 14 September 1985 in a road accident in France whilst riding pillion on a motorcycle driven by the defendant. She suffered paraplegia with severe complications. The defendant’s liability in negligence was not disputed. The plaintiff and defendant were living together at the time and married in November 1990. The defendant provided care for the plaintiff when she was not hospitalised and incurred travelling expenses visiting her in hospital.

Trial Award

The trial judge awarded total damages of £617,004, which included £4,429 for the defendant’s travelling expenses, £17,000 for past services rendered by the defendant in caring for the plaintiff, and £60,000 for the estimated value of future care services to be provided by the defendant.

Issues

The principal issue was whether an injured plaintiff could recover damages representing the value of gratuitous care services where the voluntary carer providing those services was the tortfeasor himself. A subsidiary issue concerned the appropriate multiplier for calculating future loss.

Judgment

The Rationale for Voluntary Care Claims

Lord Bridge of Harwich, delivering the leading judgment, examined the development of the law regarding claims for the value of voluntary care services. He acknowledged that plaintiffs could recover such damages when care was provided by third parties, but emphasised the underlying rationale:

“the underlying rationale of the English law, as all the cases before Donnelly demonstrate, is to enable the voluntary carer to receive proper recompense for his or her services and I would think it appropriate for the House to take the opportunity so far as possible to bring the law of the two countries into accord by adopting the view of Lord Denning M.R. in Cunningham v. Harrison that in England the injured plaintiff who recovers damages under this head should hold them on trust for the voluntary carer.”

Rejection of the Donnelly v Joyce Approach

Lord Bridge expressly declined to follow the reasoning in Donnelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454, which characterised such claims as the plaintiff’s own loss based on their need for services:

“With respect, I do not find this reasoning convincing. I accept that the basis of a plaintiff’s claim for damages may consist in his need for services but I cannot accept that the question from what source that need has been met is irrelevant.”

Application to the Tortfeasor as Carer

Lord Bridge held that once the proper rationale was recognised, the claim against the tortfeasor for his own services must fail:

“Once this is recognised it becomes evident that there can be no ground in public policy or otherwise for requiring the tortfeasor to pay to the plaintiff, in respect of the services which he himself has rendered, a sum of money which the plaintiff must then repay to him.”

Insurance Irrelevant

The House rejected the argument that the existence of insurance should alter the position:

“At common law the circumstance that a defendant is contractually indemnified by a third party against a particular legal liability can have no relevance whatever to the measure of that liability.”

Multiplier Issue

On the subsidiary issue, the House of Lords restored the trial judge’s multiplier of 14, holding that the Court of Appeal had erred in increasing it to 15 based on actuarial tables without proper comparison of like circumstances.

Implications

This decision fundamentally clarified the legal basis for claims in respect of gratuitous care. It established that such damages are held on trust by the plaintiff for the benefit of the voluntary carer, bringing English law closer to the Scottish statutory position under section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982. The practical consequence is that where the tortfeasor provides care services, no claim can be made for their value since it would be circular for the plaintiff to recover money only to return it to the defendant. The decision also reaffirmed the traditional approach to multipliers, cautioning against mechanical application of actuarial tables without proper consideration of the specific circumstances of the case.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal's order was set aside and the trial judge's order was varied by reducing the principal award by £81,429 (representing the defendant's travelling expenses and the value of his past and future care services) plus corresponding reduction in interest. No order for costs in the Court of Appeal or House of Lords.

Source: Hunt v Severs [1994] UKHL 4 (28 April 1994)