0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Thomas v Kwik Save Stores Ltd

29 June 2000
The issues

Fatal Accidents Act – Assessing dependency of the claimant on the deceased

The facts

In 1995 Mrs Thomas who was 60, fell in the Defendant’s shop and broke her leg. A month later, having undergone surgery she collapsed and died from a pulmonary embolism. She had not been in good health prior to her accident. In the course of the months prior to the accident her condition had become progressively worse – she suffered from osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes and high blood pressure. She had been unable to walk very far and had been granted the mobility component of the disability living allowance at the higher rate. The Claimant had dealt with anything involving heavy work whilst the deceased had cooked, done general cleaning and helped in the garden. The matter came to trial and damages were awarded to the estate of £50,000.00 under the 1976 Act and £5,000.00 for the deceased’s pain and suffering.

The decision

This was a perfect example of one where the multiplier/multiplicand approach was inappropriate. The progress of her disabilities was entirely unpredictable. She might or might not have been able to continue to provide assistance in the house. On the other hand, she could have become a burden rather than a benefit to the Claimant. When assessing compensation the Court had to remember that it was carrying out an exercise in determining the financial and not the emotional dependency of the Claimant on the deceased. The award of £50,000.00 was far too high. The Judge had been effected by the fact that the Claimant had lost not merely services but a close and loving companion. These are not matters that the Court could award damages in respect of under the 1976 Act. An appropriate figure would be £20,000.00. The Judge had also seriously overvalued the award for pain and suffering which should have been compensation for 3 weeks. £2,500.00 was substituted

focus on...

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up