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

Office for National Statistics to carry out a survey. 58
The results, which are
reproduced at Appendix B, have provided us with invaluable guidance. We shall
now set out how the research was conducted and explain how it has influenced us.
As we have said earlier, 59
Dr Mavis McLean of Wolfson College, Oxford and of the
Lord Chancellor’s Department has greatly assisted us, both with the design and
the interpretation of the research.
3.43 The Office for National Statistics carries out a monthly survey, the ONS Omnibus
Survey, the methodology for which is explained in detail in Appendix B. In brief,
every month “face to face” interviews are conducted with approximately 1,900
adults. The interviewees are selected from a list of private household addresses in
such a way that those interviewed form a random and representative sample of the
population of Great Britain.
3.44 A series of questions on damages for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases
was included in the September and November 1998 surveys. 60
The full text of the
questions asked is included in Appendix B, but for ease of reference we shall here
set out the content of the first question asked. 61
Each interviewee was first told the
following:
The next set of questions is being asked on behalf of the Law
Commission. When a person or an organisation is considered by the
courts to be legally responsible for causing someone an injury, they
have to pay compensation to the injured person. The compensation is
in two parts. The first part compensates for any financial loss due to
injury; for example, loss of earnings, medical expenses or the cost of
long-term care. The second part compensates for those effects of the
injury that cannot be measured precisely, for example pain, worry and
no longer being able to enjoy life as much as before the injury. I am
now going to ask you to read brief descriptions of four cases in which
people became eligible for compensation. When you have read the
descriptions, I would like you to tell me how much money you think
each of the injured people should have been awarded for the second
type of compensation. The first case describes injuries to a young
damages for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases is properly reflective of public
opinion, its influence should ensure that the same is true of awards of damages for nonpecuniary
loss in other types of cases.
58 In considering our suggestion for a Compensation Advisory Board, several consultees made
suggestions about how to ensure that the tariff arrived at reflected the views of society as a
whole. Leigh, Day & Co proposed that the Compensation Advisory Board be subject to a
duty to consult widely with the general public and to take into account the effects of
consultation. APIL thought public input might be secured by market research techniques,
or “citizens’ juries” (and see also 3.14 note 22 above regarding research submitted by APIL
with its response). The Association of Law Teachers thought that the deliberations of the
Compensation Advisory Board should be supplemented and reinforced by larger scale
investigations of societal attitudes to quantum carried our periodically under the aegis of
the Board.
59 See para 1.11 above.
60 And some further interviews were carried out in the October 1998 survey.
61 A second question was asked which particularly raised with interviewees the question of
how awards of damages in personal injury cases are funded. See paras 3.63-3.64 below.
39