header-logo header-logo

23 September 2010 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7434 / Categories: Features , Personal injury , Community care
printer mail-detail

Where the heart is

pi_0_4

Richard Scorer asks who cares best? Home or hospice?

It has long been accepted in personal injury claims that an injured claimant may seek damages from the tortfeasor in respect of gratuitous care provided by family members and friends. Provided such care was reasonably required, the court assesses and awards a reasonable sum. This is a sensible and fair rule: most people who are injured do not have the money to pay for professional nursing care, and are therefore dependent on friends and family to meet their care needs. In legal terms, the loss belongs to the carer not to the claimant; the damages are therefore held on trust for the carer.

In serious injury cases, particularly industrial disease claims where the claimant’s condition leads to a progressive deterioration with increasing levels of pain, the claimant’s care in the final stages of the illness may often be provided by a hospice. Mesothelioma is an asbestos related cancer arising from the inhalation of asbestos fibres, leading to lung disease. The condition is incurable

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll