.
You are receiving this email because you are subscribed to the Devon Chambers mailing list.
If you do not wish to receive further emails from us please click here to unsubscribe.
If you cannot see this email, please click here for the web version
Telephone: 01752 661659
Visit Site | Email
Assessing care where there is a pre-existing condition

Reaney v University Hospitals of North Staffordshire NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 1119

Summary
  • This case concerns the valuation of care where C has a pre-existing care requirement.
  • The eggshell skull principle does not apply.
  • Where the care is quantitatively different, D is only liable for the increased need.
  • Where the care is qualitatively of a different kind, D is liable for all of those needs.
The Facts

C suffered a non-negligent condition which meant she was mid thoracic paraplegic.  She therefore had a care requirement of an hour a day.  As a result of D’s clinical negligence, she suffered deep pressure sores and other serious complications.  She then needed a significant care package, involving two carers and a larger property.

At first instance, C was awarded the cost of all of her care, accommodation and other needs on the basis that D had to take their victim as they found her.  The total award was almost £2.9 million.  Foskett J said, had C not established her case on a conventional causation approach, D would be required to compensate her fully on the basis of having caused a material contribution to her care needs.

On appeal, D argued that the underlying condition had been exacerbated.  D should only be liable to the extent that the condition had been worsened.  There should be no compensation for needs which would have existed in any event.


Appeal

Held: D must compensate only to the extent that C’s condition has been worsened.

Where the needs are quantitatively different, ie more of the same, D is liable only for the additional needs.

Where the needs are qualitatively different, ie of a different kind to the underlying need, those need should be treated as entirely caused by D’s negligence.

Bailey v MOD [2009] 1 WLR 1052, (the principle where the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible) did not apply to this issue.

Practical Point

Kemp & Kemp Volume 1 13-003 sets out the correct approach.

Stuart Frampton
stuartframpton@devonchambers.co.uk
Stuart specialises in personal injury. Acting for claimants and defendants, Stuart has a range of experience in all aspects of PI.
sf.png
Our Personal Injury Team:
Stuart Frampton | Russell James | Garth Richardson | Scott Horner | Nicholas Bradley | Jennifer Tear | Richardo Childs
This email was sent to %%emailaddress%% as you are subscribed to the Devon Chambers email mailing list. If you have received this email in error, please accept our apologies. If you do not wish to receive further emails from us please click here to unsubscribe.
.