Jones (A Minor) v Wilkins (Wynn and Another, Third Parties): CA 6 Feb 2001

Where a child had not been properly restrained by a seat belt, the damages should be reduced but not by a great percentage. Here, although the child was partially restrained by sharing her mother’s lap belt, in fact this had made the injuries worse. Nevertheless, the genuine cause of the accident was the defendant’s driving, and the damages should not be reduced by more than 25%. Froom v Butcher remained valuable guidance. Although it was decided under the earlier Act, the wording in the new Act was strikingly similar.


Gazette 15-Feb-2001, Times 06-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 3024, [2001] PIQR P12, [2001] RTR 19




Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 2(1)


England and Wales


CitedFroom v Butcher CA 21-Jul-1975
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedWilliams v Williams (The Estate of) CA 30-Apr-2013
A child aged three had been injured as a passenger in her mother’s car when it was hit by another negligently driven vehicle. The mother appealed against a finding that she was 25% contributorily negligent in that the child seat used had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82585