Protecting Negligence Claimants’ Decisions: An Argument of Doctrinal Coherence in Non-pecuniary Loss

Andrew J Bell

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2025, vol. 45, issue 4, 950-979

Abstract: Various heads of non-pecuniary loss recovery in negligence cast doubt on the explanatory capacity of the traditional twin categories of pain and suffering and loss of amenity. This includes, in particular, loss of congenial employment and loss of reproductive autonomy. The central arguments of this piece are that we can construct from these, based on the existing law, a third category of non-pecuniary loss for personal injury; and that recognising this allows us to rationalise, expand and develop the claims more coherently, rather than castigating them as exceptional extras. The article demonstrates that, alongside pain and suffering and losses of amenity, the courts have already accepted ‘loss of a protected decision’ in these contexts. From that base, the argument considers with more conceptual coherence whether further instances of this category can be accepted in the healthcare and other contexts.

Keywords: negligence; personal injury; non-pecuniary loss; damages; choice (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ojls/gqaf025 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:45:y:2025:i:4:p:950-979.

Access Statistics for this article

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is currently edited by Liz Fisher, Stefan Enchelmaier, Andreas Televantos, Liora Lazarus and Jennifer Payne

More articles in Oxford Journal of Legal Studies from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().