In English law, can a charitable hospital that provides free care to an injured person claim from the tortfeasor who injured him? Of course not ... except that apparently it now can, at least if the injured person or his estate is prepared to play ball.

In Drake v Starkey [2010] EWHC 2004 (QB), a nice case decided yesterday, an asbestosis victim lived out his last month at a hospice. The care was free, though victims and their estates often felt obliged to make a gift after the event. After the death the estate came in, wearing the decedent's hat under the 1934 Act, said it felt like making a donation representing a reasonable charge for the therapy received (a not inconsiderable £10,000 for a month), and asked the tortfeasor to cough up. Held: the estate wins. There's no difference between care given by a kind relative and a kind charity: if the former can claim, so can the latter. There is, of course, the usual Hunt v Severs trust: but even that is now a pretty empty shell, since under the new court rules the payment goes direct to the carer, with a court-directed receipt to the nominal plaintiff.

In short, it seems to me, a direct tort claim in all but name. Indeed, arguably even better, since the risk of costs is borne by the tortfeasor or his estate, and not by the party that stands to get the loot. Nice work if you can get it?


Best wishes to all

Andrew