header-logo header-logo

Damaged

24 July 2009 / Andrew Ritchie KC
Issue: 7379 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Who should pay for additional educational needs, asks Andrew Ritchie QC

Children and adolescents who have suffered brain injury as a result of a tort will have additional needs for educational assistance. The state provides schools and (questionably) adequate education for the general population. It also provides additional help for those with special needs, but often does not cater adequately for them. So can the claimant recover damages for his additional educational needs?

The main principle 

Damages are recoverable in full for the additional cost and expense involved in providing for an injured child’s special needs where those needs were caused by the defendant’s tort. Other examples of heads of loss where the defendant is required to fund the costs of the injured child’s special needs include: speech therapy; occupational therapy; physiotherapy; specially adapted household aids and equipment; adapted IT aids and equipment; specially adapted transport; nursing care; and housing.

This statement of the full compensation principle springs from a long established tort rule summarised 129 years ago by Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll