Compensation for "loss of wife's services"

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

The BBC is reporting that a man has won £600,000 for the loss of the domestic services his wife used to provide before her death.

I know on here it's often said some men look on their wives as domestic appliances - but this seems to take it a step further.

What do you think?

[QisforQcumber]

That is disgusting.

[17leftfeet]

I think families that are affected by asbestos should be compensated although this does seen to be a very cold way of calculating that figure

[ChaChaChaChanges]

Isn't it quite a helpful thing for those of us treated as domestic servants? It shows our contributions have value and that a monetary equivalent can be calculated.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I think the judge was in the highly unusual position of having to put a monetary value on the life of this woman in relation to her family in order to determine a reasonable financial compensation. If she'd been traditionally employed, I expect her salary would have been taken into account. I don't think this very artificial calculation diminishes anyone's role as a home-maker or reduces anyone in domestic appliance status.

[kickassangel]

It sounds like a figure was needed to show how much money would cover the work that now had to be bought in by paying for childcare, cleaner etc. I haven't read the link but I think that sounds quite a low figure. Depending on the age of kids then over a decade of childcare, cleaning, cooking, taxi rides etc is actually a lot of money. That's why lower income families often can't afford to have both partners working. The husband can start doing some if that work, but at a time that the family is grieving, it will be hard and they will need extra support.

The word services makes it sound a bit like servant. It maybe would have been better to say loss of wife 's household work.

[kickassangel]

OK. Have read the link. She did work as well!

Seems a reasonable amount for the hours I housework she apparently did. Someone with young kids must be worth millions in potential services if it's calculated on hours per week.

[MorphineDreams]

Well in fairness I've seen people on here telling people that they should tell their partners that they're worth X amount as they're a housekeeper, childminder etc rolled into one.

And wives can sue if anything happens to their partner's penis - is this saying they're just a sex object perhaps? Or is it reasonable?

[SignoraStronza]

I dunno really. People take out life assurance for the same reasons don't they? I know there's a sum on my head to cover childcare/a cleaner - in the event that I kark it Dh will still have to keep working.

That's not me abandoning my feminist principles, that's just the way it is!

[Petrasmumma]

I know it feels ghastly, but in cases like this, the judge knows he wants to give a level of compensation and has to find a way of justifying it, however backwards that feels or offensive his reasoning.

[Longtalljosie]

That's precisely what you do when you calculate how much life assurance you have.

[bobbywash]

Its just a turn of phrase that they use legally, it's got nothing to do actually providing services, the same applies the other way round too.

I think it used to be called loss of consanguinuity.

(if that's what the OP is getting at, if I've grasped it the wrong way then please accept my apologies)

[Purpleroxy]

You can insure the life of a sahm like this, perfectly ordinary thing to do.

[thedancingbear]

I actually think this is reasonable (though of course it does feel very 'cold' too). If he awarded no compensation because what she did around the house did not have a financial value, then that would be scandalous.

[Frontier]

It's perfectly reasonable. DH is insured because we as a family would miss the wage he brings in. If I went, then the unpaid work I do would have to be done by someone. I'm happy to think DH would be able to pay someone to do it so that he could concentrate on continuing to earn a living and on the DC who would very much need him.

[pinkflaming0]

It's perfectly reasonable. What would be appalling would be if the loss of a wife or husband was valued only in terms of their earnings. Domestic work is vastly undervalued (as a result of it being seen as 'women's work' largely). What someone would have to pay to replace those services so that they can continue to work following the loss of a partner is often massively underestimated.

I think it is a good thing that the value of looking after a home and family is being recognised.

[HermioneWeasley]

I agree, it's not saying she was a domestic appliance, it's valuing her contribution as a homemaker.