The Actions for Loss of Services, Loss of Consortium, Seduction and Enticement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
,+ S$ 127-1 38-01 'w..B. This is a Working Paper circulated for comment and criticism only. It docs not represent tha final vievs of the LEGJ Cormission. 14th June 1968 TH3 ACTIONS FOR LOSS OF SZRVICES, LCSS OF COWSORTIUN, 1. Earlier consultations have revealed the need for further tlought on these topics, The difficulties are such that we think it necessary to have further and wider consultations before reachk.g final conclusions. Accordingly we set out in this Vorlcing Paper the questions to which we are anxious to obtain answers and the provisional conclusions so far as we feel ourselves in a position to reach any. The reasoning that lies behind these questions and conclusions is to be found in the para,mphs of tle Appendix cited below. The Employer's Action for Loss of Services 2. Questions:- If the employer's right to damages for loss of services is to be abolished shoulf3 anything take its place? (paras,9-22) Would it in fact be likely to lead to a greater readiness to continue payment of wages during injury or to more generous sick-pay arrangernents if employers were given a right to recover such payments from the tortfeasor? (paras. 1 5-21 ) (3) If some new right should be provided, should this take the form of a right by the employer to recover by action from the tortfeasor payments which he has made that have reduced the damages which would othcmise have been recoverable by the employee? (paras. 24-29) (4) Alternatively, should the victim be entitled to recover damages from the tortfeasor without deduc-Lionof payments made to him by the employer?( paras. 30-40) (5) Alternatively, should the victim be entitled to recover, without deduction of paynents made to him by his employer, save to the exter,t of one-half the value of such papents reczived or receivable within five years of the accidont? (para.41) If the answer to (4) or (5) is in the affirmative, shoulll the victim be obliged to restore such payments to his ernployer? (paras.30-40) If the ansver to question (3) or (6) is in the affirmative, what ought the lavi to be when the damages recoversd by the employee are reduced because of his contributory negligence? (paras.25, 35 and 36) Should vhatevcr solution is adopted regarding employers apply equally to benefactors, other than the State, who have mitigated the victim's damage? (para.41) 1. 3. Provisional Conclusions Subject to reconsideration in the light of answers to these questions, our provisional conclusions (see paragraphs 42-44 of the Appendix) are: - (a) The cmployer's right to damages for loss of services should be abolished. But an emyloyee nho has been unable to work because of a tortious injury should be entitled to recover damages in respect of earnings for the period of absence prior to the trial nhetlia or not he has received remuneration, pension or siclc pay from his eniployer or axyone else. (b) An employee should be cntitlsd to reccvcr damages in respect of paplcnts made for nedical attention prior to the trial whether the payments vcrc made by him or by his employer or anyone else. (c) HOVCVCI, in assessing his damages €or loss of future earnings, account should be taken of any paymcnts arising out of his employment vhich he will or may receive (zxcept as provided in the La17 Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948) but not of payments unrelated to his cclploymnt, such as proceeds of an insurance policy which he has taken out or' voluntary contributions by friznds or rclations. (d) SiLiilarly, in assessing damages for future medical attention account should bc taken of any right arising out of his cmployncnt to have those paid bu-t, again, not of any right unrelated to the employment. (e) .;rhcrc payments under (a) or (b) have Sccn nade to cr on behalf of the victim by his emTloyer or othcr third party, the lan should not provicl any definite right te recoupment from the victim. This shculd be left to be worked out bcbmcn the victim and the benefactor, either prcspcctivcly (fcr example under conditions of cnployncnt) or retro- spectively after t'nc victim has rccovzre& from the tortfeasor. Family Losses 4. Questions:- (1) If a husband's right to damagcs for loss of his wife's society and services or loss of a child's scrviccs is to bc abolished, is it acccptsd that a nevr right shculd tab its place? (paras.46-48) If so:- (2) Is it acccptcd that, in so €si. as rclativcs have made payments cr CO ferred benefits which mitigate tha damcp of tho victim, such pape or benefits should contiliuc to be disregarded in assessing his dam I?nd that tlis victin should not bc under ,any legal obli&ation to yes to the rclstives unlcss the court othcxvise directs? (para.50) (3) As regards othcr losses incurred by xxibers of the family, is it accepted th2-t pdcuniary lossos should be recoverable from the 2. * tortfcasor whtlthcr they arise from- (a) visits to the victim's sick bed (b) the need to lock after thc victki or to secure the perf ormnce of the donestic role pri.viously perf orriled by hin; ' (c) financial dcpcndency on thc victim? (paras.49 adL52-61) (4) As regards thcse pccuniery losses, is it ncceiAxd that clainants (in eithcr fatal or non-fatal cases) should not be rcstrictcd to 2 defi- nitely prescribed class? (paras.53, 54, 57,C' .:. ':- 61) (5) %:-t should be the positicn regarding ncn-pccuniary losscs flci-ring (a) from dsprivation of domestic sGrvices companionship and parental cam, and (b) frcm grief? Should Yfiere bc (i) no recovcry at all in either fatal or non-fatal cams (para.68), (ii) rcccvcry only cf a fixed SUL? by the estate of a deceased victim (para.69) (iii) rcccvery up to a prescribed nzxiiun swi in respect of both (a) and (b) (para.70) (iv) rccovcry without any prescribed inaxinum (para.71), or (v) recovery in rcspcct of (?-) but not (b) (para.72)? (sec paras. 73-75) (6) Is it acceytcd that if non-pecuniary faily losses mre ccccverablc iii fatal casw the dacczsed's onn claiin for non-pecuniary loss should not survive fGr the bcilcfit of his estate? (paras.7C-72) . ... (7) Is it acccptc-d thnt, if non-pecuniary fanily losses nerz rccovmabls, they should nct survivc f Gr rho benef it clf thc clahant' s .:state <pars, 75) (8) . As regards proceduri., is it acccptc.d that of the fcur possible il!ethodS (r2ccvery by the victic, inlividurl claim by each :.laber of the family, a system analogous to that under the Fatal liccidcnts Act, and a rcpre- sentativc action) a genzraliscd proccdurc similar to that under the Fatal Accidents Act -~ouldbc the best soluticn? If SG, should the other members of tlne family be entitled to apply tc be jcincd as plaintiffs in an action by the victin, and afteri-;hat period cf ltelay by the victim should they bc cntitld to bring proceedings indepcndciltly of him? (paras. 77-84) (9) Should t'nc amunts rcccvmable by thc fanily be reduced proportionately to any contributory nogli.gmce cjf th victim? (para.85) 5. Provisional Conclusions Subject to rcconsidnation in th2 light of ansxrs to thcse qucstions our provisional conclusions (sec paras, 86-87) are: - The husband's right to dmages for loss of the nife's society and a scrviccs or cf a child's servicc should 'sc abolished. In the victim's claim for dznagss against tlic tortfcasor, pqments or other boiiefits received by hin from relatives or other benefactors should be ignored;..but tbccmt. &~qldh8.x _pg:Je-r _g--a?p.cp)riaJ~ cases to give dirocticns cr ts obtein undertzkings rezarding restoration to thc benefactor (paras.41 and 50). Other pccuniary losscs suffcxtcd 'oy xcmbers cf the family as a result cf the injury tc the victim shculd be rccoverablc vrhethcr or not the injuries are fatal (paras.52-61). R~CGVS~~should Extend tc the reesonablc cost cf such visits to the victim's hospital or sick-bed 2s ncrc naturally to be expected in the circumstances (paras. 52-54). Claimants should not be rostricted tc a pxscribsd class of relatives and clcpenhnts; anycna who has suffored pecuniary loss which flowed frm or was a reasonable conscqucnce Gf tho nrongful injury or death should be entitled to recover (paras. 53, 54, 57 md 60) We have, as yet, fcrmed- no ccncludel: vim on vhethar non-pecuniary losses should bc rccovaablc and, if sc, to what extent and on nhnt basis (paras. 6 9 75). If non-pecuniary less is to be r-.covcrable it nil1 be necessary to prcs- cribe ths clzss cf rc1ativc.s and dependants entitled tc claim, unless e ither (i) ncn-pxuniary losses ars restricted to fatal cases and arc conpcnsatd by -a phymcnt cf a-fixed sm to--the-deccasicd's estate, or (ii) claims arc limited tJ thms who have also suffered ;mxnicry loss, If a class is nrescribed it should proba&ly exclude infant children (pars. 74) If non-pocuniary losszs of relatives an6 desendants are to be reccver- able on any basis, thc victin's claim for non-pecuniary loss in fatal cases should net survive for the bcnefit of his estate (paras. 70-72). Ror shculd th? clak of the relative or dependant for non- pecuniary loss survive for the bcncfit of his estate (para.76). (j) Thc. bsst solution to the problom of reducing multiplicity cf claims (paras.77-84) night be tcj apply tc non-fatal cases a sinlilar procedure to thzt under the Fatal Accidents Act vhercby only one action can be brought on behalf of all tncse entitled tG claim.