damages for personal injury: non-pecuniary loss - Law Commission

(a) Damages for non-pecuniary loss for serious personal injury
are too low
(b) There is no clear consensus on what the level of damages for
non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases should be
(c) The views of society as a whole should influence the level of
damages for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases
(d) One must be clear as to the relevance, if any, of other
components of a damages award
iv
Paragraphs Page
3.5-3.11 23
3.12-3.13 27
3.14 28
3.15-3.20 29
(3) The Law Commission’s view on levels 3.21-3.110 31
(a) Damages for non-pecuniary loss for serious personal injury
are too low
3.22-3.33 32
(b) The definition of “serious injury” 3.34-3.40 36
(c) The amount by which damages for non-pecuniary loss for
serious personal injury should be increased
3.41-3.110 38
(I) THE VIEWS OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE 3.42-3.59 38
(II) HOW TORT DAMAGES ARE PAID FOR 3.60-3.65 46
(III) THE LEVEL OF “DAMAGES” IN OTHER UK COMPENSATION 3.66-3.84 49
SYSTEMS
(IV) THE LEVEL OF “DAMAGES” FOR NON-PECUNIARY LOSS IN
PERSONAL INJURY CASES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
3.85-3.106 55
(VI) THE LAW COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATION 3.107-3.110 64
2. WHAT MECHANISM SHOULD BE EMPLOYED TO
INCREASE DAMAGES FOR NON-PECUNIARY LOSS?
(1) Should juries play a greater role in assessing damages
for personal injury?
3.111-3.188 65
3.114-3.117 66
(2) A Compensation Advisory Board? 3.118-3.129 66
(a) Creation of a Compensation Advisory Board should be rejected
because decision-making would be unworkable and/or the
Board’s recommendations may not command respect
3.121-3.122 68
(b) Creation of a Compensation Advisory Board should be rejected
because its recommendations would not be binding
3.123-3.127 69
(c) Creation of a Compensation Advisory Board should be rejected
because it would be costly
3.128 70
(d) Conclusion 3.129 70
(3) A legislative tariff? 3.130-3.139 71
(a) A legislative tariff should be rejected because it would
politicise the question of what damages for non-pecuniary loss
should be
3.134 72
(b) A legislative tariff should be rejected because it would be
too rigid
3.135-3.138 72
(c) Conclusion 3.139 73
(4) An increase in the tariff by the Court of Appeal and/or
the House of Lords?
3.140-3.170 73
(a) Do the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords have the
power to increase the tariff of damages for non-pecuniary loss
in personal injury cases?
3.141-3.155 73
(b) Should an increase in damages be effected in this way? 3.156-3.165 81
(c) Should the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords’ power
to alter levels of damages be enshrined in statute?
3.166-3.170 85