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, Nov 23, 10:52:07