Whiten v. Pilot

jc2018jc2018
in Dav.NonPec

Hi,

Non-pecuniary damages are supposed to be punitive rather than compensatory (Dav.NonPec) but it is different from punitive damages (Harris.Tort).
So was the Whiten v. Pilot's 1M award only awarded on the basis that it was a Punitive award (in a reasonable range) and so the limit of 100K was not considered?

Thanks,

Comments

  • chrisboersmachrisboersma
    1. Damages for non-pecuniary losses are not really "compensatory" as no money can provide true restitution. Accordingly, such damages should be viewed as simply providing extra money to make life more endurable

    I don't believe there's any reference to "punitive" (or punishment) in the Davidson article.

    non-pec Damages = f(injury)
    Punitive Damages = f(insurer)
    - payment is WINDFALL to injured party (as money has nowhere else to go).
    - it is meant as a financial penalty (punishment) for bad bahaviour.
    - It needs to be large enough to be painful to insurer (bigger for LARGE insurer).

  • jc2018jc2018

    my reference was to Graham's notes.
    But I see that my question is actually already answered in the notes for Dav.NonPec which I seem to have missed the first time going over.
    Please ignore my question.

  • UnknownUnknown

    @graham Can you fix the pop quiz? It says non-pecuniary with respect to the Whiten case. I believe it should say punitive. Thanks!

  • grahamgraham

    Fixed. Thx!

Sign In or Register to comment.