A husband and wife crossed a road. The wife, appreciating that the danger from the traffic, ran across. The husband stood in the middle of the road and then went ahead, but was struck by a vehicle and injured. He was significantly affected by alcohol, and evidence had been led at the trial indicating the … Continue reading Liddell v Middleton: CA 17 Jul 1995
The claimant was severely injured when a car driven by the defendant crashed. No-one was wearing a seat belt. The driver died. The driver’s estate argued that the claimant was contributorily negligent in not wearing a seat belt. The claimant said that the failure had not contributed to his actual injuries. Held: Having regard to … Continue reading Stanton v Collinson: QBD 2 Mar 2009
The claimant sought damages for serious personal injury, saying that the defendant had deliberately or recklessly driven at him as a pedestrian, knocking him over. The defendant had been tried and acquitted of motoring offences. He said that the claimant and his friends were drunk and had pulled down there trousers to insilt him, and … Continue reading Ayres v Odedra: QBD 18 Jan 2013
The claimant sought damages saying that her house had been damaged by subsidence after dessication of the soil by trees under the defendant’s control. Held: The defendants were liable. Judges: Edwards-Stuart J Citations: [2012] EWHC 2257 (TCC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1) Citing: Cited – Berent v Family Mosaic Housing … Continue reading Robbins v London Borough of Bexley: TCC 16 Aug 2012
Contributory negligence is no defence to a claim which was made out strictly in contract only. Citations: Gazette 29-Jun-1994, Times 11-May-1994, [1994] EWCA Civ 3, [1995] QB 214, [1995] 1 All ER 289, [1994] 3 WLR 1057 Links: Bailii Statutes: Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1), 4 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See also … Continue reading Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd: CA 11 May 1994
The claimant had been injured, being hit by the defendant’s bus. Judges: Ward, Richards, Patten LJJ Citations: [2012] EWCA Civ 628 Links: Bailii Statutes: Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Adopted – Eagle v Chambers CA 24-Jul-2003 The claimant was severely injured when run down by the defendant driving … Continue reading Rehill v Rider Holdings Ltd: CA 16 May 2012
Judges: Christopher Clarke J Citations: [2009] EWHC 2997 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Principal judgment – Toropdar v D QBD 20-Mar-2009 The claimant car driver sought a declaration that he was not responsible for an accident. He had been driving along when the 10 … Continue reading Toropdar v D: QBD 2 Oct 2009
A collision occurred between a motor car and a cyclist. The driver appealed a finding that he had been driving too quickly, and that that was a cause of the accident. The claimant had cut across a right hand corner of the narrow unmarked lane. The lane had high hedges. The cyclist was 60% to … Continue reading Lamoon v Fry: CA 29 Apr 2004
The claimant pedestrian had been injured when hit by a car driven by the defendant as she stepped into the roadway. Both parties appealed against the assessment of contributory negligence. The claimant had a blood alcohol level three times that which would have been lawful for a driver. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The judge’s … Continue reading Lunt v Khelifa: CA 22 May 2002
The claimant was severely injured when run down by the defendant driving his car. She was in Blackpool, and drunk and wandering in the highway. The defendant was himself at or near the drink driving limit. She appealed against a finding that she was 60% to blame. Held: Courts have consistently required drivers to recognise … Continue reading Eagle v Chambers: CA 24 Jul 2003
The female plaintiff had been injured in a collision caused by the concurrent negligence of her husband and the defendant. She could not succeed in a negligence action against her husband, so the defendant could not recover under the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935 any contribution to the damages awarded against the … Continue reading Drinkwater v Kimber: CA 1952
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured when a co-worker fired a shot. The employee however had himself coupled the detonator to the cable rather than leaving it to the shotfirer, and had his cimmitted a criminal offence. He had been found a quarter responsible, and the NCB sought to rely on the doctrine of … Continue reading National Coal Board v England: HL 1954
A car driver drove into the back of a stationary lorry but was nevertheless held only 20% responsible. Held: A court of appeal should only exceptionally interfere with a judge’s apportinment of responsibility for an accident.Winn LJ said: ‘When it is necessary for a court to ascribe liability in proportions to more than one person, … Continue reading Brown v Thompson: CA 1968
Plaintiff to take own responsibility for damage The question was whether the fault of the deceased’s fellow workman, they both having disobeyed their foreman’s instructions, was to be regarded as having contributed to the accident. Held: A plaintiff must ‘share in the responsibility for the damage’ for the Act to apply, and this involves consideration … Continue reading Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd: HL 25 Jun 1953
The claimant cyclist sought damages for severe personal injury. He was walking or riding his cycle through some roadworks by the roadside, and fell out through roadside barriers into the path of a car. The defendants admitted that the path was less wide than it should have been, but said he should not have been … Continue reading Kotula v EDF Energy Networks (Epn) Plc and Others: QBD 15 Jun 2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries. He had been driving a Land Rver whilst on active duty in Afghanistan. He said that he was known not to be properly qualified to drive. Held: The appeal was allowed. Once it was known to the defendants that the claimant was to be … Continue reading Birch v Ministry of Defence: CA 14 Jun 2013
The plaintiffs had lent about 1 million pounds on the security of property negligently valued at 1.5 million pounds. The property was sold for much less than that and the plaintiffs suffered a loss of 680,000 pounds. The judge found that the plaintiffs had been contributorily negligent in failing to note that the borrowers had … Continue reading Platform Home Loans Ltd v Oyston Shipways Ltd and others: HL 18 Feb 1999
Fraudulent Misrepresentation by Company Director Fraudulent bills of lading had been issued in order to rely upon letters of credit issued by the bank. The director signing the bills sought to avoid personal liability, saying it was the Act of the company. The defendant company also appealed on the basis that the claimant bank had … Continue reading Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Others and Another and Others (Nos 2 and 4): HL 6 Nov 2002
The court asked what reduction if any should be made to a plaintiff’s damages where injuries were caused not only by the defendant’s negligent driving but also by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. It had been submitted that, since the defendant was not responsible for the failure of the plaintiff … Continue reading Froom v Butcher: CA 21 Jul 1975
Where a deceit was established leading to an award of damages, that award of damages was not capable of being reduced under the 1949 Act through a contribution to the loss occasioned by the claimant’s own behaviour, where that behaviour did not fall . .
Two ships had collided. A third itself ran aground trying to avoid them, and its ownes sought damages. Held: The unit approach to apportionment of damages was wrong.Lord Morris said of section 1 of the 1911 Act: ‘The section calls for inquiry as to fault, and inquiry as to damage or loss, and inquiry as … Continue reading The Miraflores and The Abadesa: PC 1967
Once relevant fault on the part of the plaintiff has been established, a reduction on account of his fault in the damages recoverable is obligatory Stephenson LJ: ‘Speaking for myself, I do not find that the words of section 1(1) of the Law Reform . .
