Boothman v British Northrop Ltd: CA 1972

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 (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 give any support to the view that the court can disregard negligence on the part of a plaintiff contributing to an accident if it thinks it just and equitable so to do. What the section says is that ‘the damages recoverable in respect thereof’ – that is, in respect of damage suffered by any person ‘as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person’ – ‘shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share of the responsibility for the damage’.
It has been held that the principle of de minimis applies to this as to other branches of the law and that where the contribution of a plaintiff’s negligence is virtually negligible it should be disregarded and the damages should be awarded him in full. If one looks at the words of section 1 (1) of the Act of 1945 they do not seem to leave much room for an application of the de minimis principle. But they certainly, in my view, do not encourage, and I very much doubt if they permit, not a reduction ‘to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable’ but no reduction at all because the court thinks it just and equitable that there should be no reduction. The judge having found (as I think, rightly) contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, I do not think it is open to Mr Carman to argue that even if that finding stands he should not have his damages reduced at all.’
Stephenson LJ
[1972] KIR 113
Law reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBadger v The Ministry of Defence QBD 16-Dec-2005
The widow of the deceased sought damages after his exposure to asbestos whilst working for the defendant. He had contracted lung cancer. The defendant argued that the deceased had continued to smoke knowing of the risks, and that he had made a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.237431