{"id":82,"date":"2004-03-30T22:26:34","date_gmt":"2004-03-30T22:26:34","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2004-03-30T22:26:34","modified_gmt":"2004-03-30T22:26:34","slug":"gaca-v-pirelli-general-plc-ca-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=82","title":{"rendered":"Gaca v Pirelli General plc CA [2004]"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>[Tort &#8211; damages and compensation &#8211; deduction &#8211; payments from group insurance deductible from damages]<\/strong> <br \/>D employed C who was seriously injured in an accident at work. Whilst C was off work he received payments form a group insurance scheme. Following the termination of his employment he received an ill health gratuity payment from the defendant and a payment under the insurance policy for &#8216;permanent total disability&#8217;. C claimed damages for personal injury. <\/p>\n<p><strong>Held<\/strong>: There was a fundamental difference between a payment made by an employer to his employee to compensate him for the consequences of injuries suffered in an accident, and a payment made to a victim of an accident by a third party out of sympathy for his or her plight. The instant case did not come within the &#8216;benevolence exception&#8217; because the payments had been made by the tortfeasor, and the payment of benefits under the insurance policy was not equivalent, or analogous, to payments made by third parties out of sympathy. <\/p>\n<p><strong>D won<\/strong> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[Tort &#8211; damages and compensation &#8211; deduction &#8211; payments from group insurance deductible from damages] D employed C who was seriously injured in an accident at work. Whilst C was off work he received payments form a group insurance scheme. Following the termination of his employment he received an ill health gratuity payment from the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=82"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=82"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=82"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=82"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}