Are women's faces worth 67% more than men's?

An interesting post in the University of Oxford’s Practical Ethics highlighted the discrepancy between the personal injury claim value of the value of a woman’s face and the value of a man’s face.

According to the Judicial College’s canonical personal injury text ‘Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases’ – indeed, the 2013 12th Edition that our solicitors regularly review when building our clients’ compensation claims – the range of general damages young women receive for very severe facial scarring is between £39,160 and £78,650. In comparison, the amount of money a male under 30 with the same injuries would receive in the general damages aspect of a personal injury claim would be between £24,090 and £53,075.

Charles Foster, Tutor in Medical Law and Ethics and Green Templeton College Fellow, pointed out that this indicates under current UK personal injury law, a young woman’s face is worth between 46% and 67% more than a young man’s face. The difference between the maximum guideline values – which are suggested to be rewarded to those people with some of the most severe levels of facial scarring possible – is a total of £25,575.

Mr Foster noted that the Guidelines’ editors seem to be embarrassed by the difference in the two values, with them arguing that while it could be seriously doubted as to whether gender should properly or lawfully be determined to play a role in determining a claimant’s damages, the discrepancy relates to cases that go back to the “mists of time”.

The factors in determining the value of a personal injury claim relate to the subjective impact the injury has had on the claimant, their pain, suffering, and how the injury has affected their quality of life. Recent legislative changes have seen some gender discrepancies in payments and damages closed up – for instance, following a ruling from the European Court of Justice, it is no longer permissible for insurers to use gender when determining a person’s car insurance premiums, something which previously saw women paying less for insurance than men.

What Is The Solution?

Strasbourg’s motor insurance premiums ruling supported gender-blindness in determining insurance premiums, and it is hard to think of a compelling argument why this should not also apply to compensation payments. However, as Mr Foster correctly states, while in no way minimising the effect that facial scarring has on young men, the typical attitude of wider society is that facial scarring matters more to women than to men, and personal injury claim values should not be based in a non-existent society in which people are not judged on their faces and that this might matter more to women than to men.

Personal injury law exists to put the victim of someone else’s negligence back into the situation they would have been in had the accident not occurred, and while this may be a difficult preposition in facial scarring claims, it is a noble cause. While insurance premiums may be a valid way to bring about societal change in gender-blindness, it would be wrong to use the victim of a negligent injury as the way to change attitudes about facial scarring.

 

Are women’s faces worth 67% more than men’s?

An interesting post in the University of Oxford’s Practical Ethics highlighted the discrepancy between the personal injury claim value of the value of a woman’s face and the value of a man’s face.

According to the Judicial College’s canonical personal injury text ‘Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases’ – indeed, the 2013 12th Edition that our solicitors regularly review when building our clients’ compensation claims – the range of general damages young women receive for very severe facial scarring is between £39,160 and £78,650. In comparison, the amount of money a male under 30 with the same injuries would receive in the general damages aspect of a personal injury claim would be between £24,090 and £53,075.

Charles Foster, Tutor in Medical Law and Ethics and Green Templeton College Fellow, pointed out that this indicates under current UK personal injury law, a young woman’s face is worth between 46% and 67% more than a young man’s face. The difference between the maximum guideline values – which are suggested to be rewarded to those people with some of the most severe levels of facial scarring possible – is a total of £25,575.

Mr Foster noted that the Guidelines’ editors seem to be embarrassed by the difference in the two values, with them arguing that while it could be seriously doubted as to whether gender should properly or lawfully be determined to play a role in determining a claimant’s damages, the discrepancy relates to cases that go back to the “mists of time”.

The factors in determining the value of a personal injury claim relate to the subjective impact the injury has had on the claimant, their pain, suffering, and how the injury has affected their quality of life. Recent legislative changes have seen some gender discrepancies in payments and damages closed up – for instance, following a ruling from the European Court of Justice, it is no longer permissible for insurers to use gender when determining a person’s car insurance premiums, something which previously saw women paying less for insurance than men.

What Is The Solution?

Strasbourg’s motor insurance premiums ruling supported gender-blindness in determining insurance premiums, and it is hard to think of a compelling argument why this should not also apply to compensation payments. However, as Mr Foster correctly states, while in no way minimising the effect that facial scarring has on young men, the typical attitude of wider society is that facial scarring matters more to women than to men, and personal injury claim values should not be based in a non-existent society in which people are not judged on their faces and that this might matter more to women than to men.

Personal injury law exists to put the victim of someone else’s negligence back into the situation they would have been in had the accident not occurred, and while this may be a difficult preposition in facial scarring claims, it is a noble cause. While insurance premiums may be a valid way to bring about societal change in gender-blindness, it would be wrong to use the victim of a negligent injury as the way to change attitudes about facial scarring.