that to claim pecuniary damages it must be reasonably foreseeable, this protects the defendant to some extent by preventing them from paying damages which could not have been foreseeable to happen from their negligent act. An example of this is the Griffiths v Lindsay (1998), which occurred when the claimant, an intoxicated taxi passenger, was hit by a car after getting out the taxi vehicle and attempting to cross the road. She tried to sue the taxi driver for negligence. The court held that it would be unfair and unreasonable to blame the taxi driver for the incident and that it would be wouldn’t be reasonable foreseeable for this to happen. Non-pecuniary damages has positives such as the amount of pain and suffering and loss of amenity is taken into account, this means physiological damages are compensated for and the lifestyle the claimant had is examined when calculating a total sum. This is a positive because the damages aren’t only physical but mental too. However, non-pecuniary damages can’t be accurately calculated as the amount awarded is simply an estimate. For example, the judge is unable to accurately predict the claimant’s future career advancements. An example case is the Wise v Kaye (1962) case, in which the plaintiff was a young woman who sustained injuries in a car accident and as a result she remained in a state of unconsciousness from the time of the accident to the date of appeal. She didn’t receive damages for pain and suffering for this period as she was not aware of it. The result of non-pecuniary damages are subjective as the outcome can differ depending on the judge.

The amount awarded may be in a lump sum or structured settlement. A lump sum can be paid quickly all at once which allows the process to be over and done with. It also allows access to a large sum of money which may be beneficial for victims of negligence in order to help them fast. For a smaller amount, a lump sum would be more suitable. However, getting a large sum of money at once may allow the claimant to spend it all at once and then run out when they need it later on which means the claimant must be a reasonable spender. Whereas for a larger sum, a structure settlement may be more suitable. Spreading out payments over time can reduce the temptation to make large, extravagant purchases, and it guarantees future income. This would be especially helpful if the claimant has a medical condition that will require long-term care. They also allow a lifelong income which allows the claimant to budget their spending. However, once