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?

That is disgusting.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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