This country actually has a brutally logical approach to damages for loss of life
If someone is brain-damaged, or paralysed, or some other state of being alive but very damaged, they get loads of money. This is because they are still alive and need huge amounts of expensive care. The younger they are, the longer they will need such care and (therefore) the more money they get. So a baby brain-damaged by negligent medical care during the birth gets ?2m+.
Conversely, if someone is dead then ex hypothesi they don't need ongoing care. Money won't do them any good. Statute says that their estate can't claim for loss of earnings. So the logical enquiry switches to their dependants. If they were supporting children then the damages are large. But if the dead person had no children, or had stopped supporting them, then there is no substantial claim.
It's logical when you think about it. Money doesn't do the dead any good.
Posted By: Old Git on November 23rd 2009 at 10:52:07
Message Thread
- ?100,000 compensation for the family of De Menezes. (General Chat) - pants, Nov 23, 01:25:08
- This country actually has a brutally logical approach to damages for loss of life (General Chat) - Old Git, Nov 23, 10:52:07
- Its also spot on for me. Who would want millions to compensate for purely the emotional (General Chat) - megson, Nov 23, 11:12:08
- My views on it would be different for NHS vs police so I might be prejudice here against (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 11:56:23
- Yeah, in that case I can see the point, depends on the amount though as again (General Chat) - megson, Nov 23, 12:03:23
- My views on it would be different for NHS vs police so I might be prejudice here against (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 11:56:23
- I get yer point but if the police shoot someone for no apparent (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 11:06:35
- Why? (General Chat) - Old Git, Nov 23, 11:19:38
- Because then there's no deterrent for crazy armed police to think before they (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 11:45:47
- But you are confusing PUNISHING the police (making them pay for their error) (General Chat) - Old Git, Nov 23, 11:51:54
- No and I agree with you that it is a rational way of doing things but I do believe that (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 12:00:41
- How much money would equate to an adequate apology? (n/m) (General Chat) - Ken Dodds Dads Dog, Nov 23, 12:02:48
- 64p enough for a can of panda cola, a bag of transform-a-snack and a chomp (n/m) (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 12:06:32
- 20 k bereavement grant and roughly 16.5k a year for life (General Chat) - Tombs, Nov 23, 12:06:17
- I assume that's to compensate the loss of potential income (General Chat) - Ken Dodds Dads Dog, Nov 23, 12:13:06
- Yes, that's far more than they would get in civil law (General Chat) - Old Git, Nov 23, 12:23:08
- indeedy (General Chat) - Tombs, Nov 23, 12:22:33
- I assume that's to compensate the loss of potential income (General Chat) - Ken Dodds Dads Dog, Nov 23, 12:13:06
- How much money would equate to an adequate apology? (n/m) (General Chat) - Ken Dodds Dads Dog, Nov 23, 12:02:48
- No and I agree with you that it is a rational way of doing things but I do believe that (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 12:00:41
- The money wouldn't come from the pockets of those responsible so how is it a deterrent? (n/m) (General Chat) - Ken Dodds Dads Dog, Nov 23, 11:48:45
- Because of the admission of guilt. When you have an argument with a partner and you know (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 12:03:50
- An expensive gift means nothing if the tax payer was paying for it though. (General Chat) - Ken Dodds Dads Dog, Nov 23, 12:17:11
- you're* (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 12:04:20
- Because of the admission of guilt. When you have an argument with a partner and you know (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 12:03:50
- But you are confusing PUNISHING the police (making them pay for their error) (General Chat) - Old Git, Nov 23, 11:51:54
- Because then there's no deterrent for crazy armed police to think before they (General Chat) - stringersrevenge, Nov 23, 11:45:47
- How can a huge sum of money really compensate someone for the death of a family member? (n/m) (General Chat) - Ken Dodds Dads Dog, Nov 23, 11:17:09
- no offence to meggers (General Chat) - Tombs, Nov 23, 11:36:33
- The dimissal of the guilty party should be an adaquate penalty for the guilty party. (General Chat) - Ken Dodds Dads Dog, Nov 23, 11:47:02
- Aye, that is something i'd agree with, wouldn't have a problem with that. (General Chat) - megson, Nov 23, 11:44:16
- I'd be willing to give it a whirl in the case of my mother in law (n/m) (General Chat) - Old Git, Nov 23, 11:28:37
- no offence to meggers (General Chat) - Tombs, Nov 23, 11:36:33
- they didn't shoot him for no apparent reason (General Chat) - Tombs, Nov 23, 11:11:02
- Why? (General Chat) - Old Git, Nov 23, 11:19:38
- Its also spot on for me. Who would want millions to compensate for purely the emotional (General Chat) - megson, Nov 23, 11:12:08
- This country actually has a brutally logical approach to damages for loss of life (General Chat) - Old Git, Nov 23, 10:52:07
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.