​BLAMIRE V SOUTH CUMBRIA HEALTH AUTHORITY [1993] PIQR Q1
 
FACTS:-
 
The Claimant was a female nurse. On the 12th June 1985 aged 22, she injured her lower back in a lifting accident at work making it permanently vulnerable. Prior to her accident, she had taken a secretarial course after completing her schooling and had worked as a secretary. However she wanted to be a nurse. As a result, she was off work for succeeding years for various periods of time. In 1988 she had an appendix operation and she sustained a whiplash injury. Although she was transferred to lighter duties in 1989, it became clear that she could not continue as a nurse. In the latter part of 1988, she became pregnant and in January 1989, she ceased work. By November 1989 she recognised that she was not able to continue work as a nurse, as lifting was too difficult for her. In December 1989, she obtained part time work at a residential home. She gave up work in 1990 and in May 1991 she gave birth to a second child.
 
The Claimant instituted the action, and it came to trial in early 1991. The trial judge awarded £11,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and loss of career. There was also a past loss of earnings claim in the sum of £3,000. The trial judge also found that but for the accident, the Claimant would have pursued a lifelong career in nursing, and that she would probably have to work as a secretary, that it would be significantly more difficult to obtain such work and that it was reasonable to expect some recurrence of back trouble during her working life. The judge did not accept the multiplier/multiplicand approach and took into account loss of pension benefits, and awarded £25,000 for future loss of wages, pension and damages for handicap in the labour market. The Claimant appealed.
 
HELD:-
 
Lord Justice Steyn said that it had been submitted on appeal that the judge ought to have approached the case by applying a conventional multiplicand/multiplier formula. This would have resulted in a loss of between £100,000 to £118,000. In relation to pension loss, an arithmetical calculation would have resulted in an award of around £13,000.
 
Steyn LJ did not accept this. The two principal issues that confronted the judge were:-
 

1. What was the likely pattern of the Claimant’s future earnings had she not been injured?
2. What was the likely pattern for the Claimant’s future earnings given the fact that she had now been injured?

 
The burden of proof rested on the Claimant. In relation to the multiplier/multiplicand approach, it was clear that the judge took the view that this approach was inappropriate. His reasons were:-
 

1. There was uncertainty as to what the Claimant would have earned over the course of her working life if she had not been injured.
2. The Claimant might have more children
3. She clearly would have liked to have done part time rather than full time work.
4. She and her husband had taken out a mortgage, but that would be less of a burden as the years went on.
5. There were uncertainties as to the likely future pattern of her earnings

 
In relation to the pension loss, that was taken into account but the judge was weighing up risks and possibilities.
 
The Claimant’s counsel had submitted that the judge had overlooked the claim for vulnerability in the job market. However that was an unrealistic proposition, Steyn LJ had no doubt that the judge took that aspect fully into account in the assessment of damages. He had referred to it in his judgment.
 
As Lord Reid had said in British Transport v Gourley [1956] AC 185 very often one was driven to making a very rough estimate of the damages.
 
Therefore the appeal would be dismissed. Hoffman LJ and Balcombe LJ agreed.