Tort; Negligence; remedies; calculation of damages; gratuitous benefits.
Facts: As a result of injuries from a motor cycle accident, the plaintiff needed almost constant care. His wife gave up her job as a nurse's aide to provide that care. The trial judge awarded damages for the cost of this nursing care even though it had been given without charge. The judge calculated the amount as roughly equivalent to the wife's lost wages. A further sum was awarded for future care on the basis that the wife would look after the plaintiff for another 5 -10 years, after which time he would be hospitalised. The defendant appealed against the amount of damages awarded.
Issue: Should damages be assessed by reference to the market value of the services provided, rather than by reference to the wages lost by the plaintiff's wife while she nursed him?
Decision: The market cost of any necessary care provided is the fair and reasonable value of such services.
Reason: The High Court held that damages to compensate for the cost of the necessary care were recoverable, but decided that the wages foregone by a care provider are not the appropriate measure for determining the value of services provided. As a general rule, the market cost or value of those services is the fair and reasonable value of such services. This followed the approach of the High Court in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161, which established that a plaintiff should be compensated for the value of reasonable services and care, rather than their actual cost.