The defendant driver appealed against a refusal to reduce the claimant’s damages for contributory negligence. The claimant sat in the front seat and was severely injured in the accident, but had not been wearing a seat belt.
Held: ‘there is a powerful public interest in there being no [prolonged] enquiry into fine degrees of contributory negligence, so that the vast majority of cases can be settled according to a well-understood formula and those few which entail trial do not mushroom out of control. Froom v Butcher so states, and is binding.’
Ward, Hallett, Hughes LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 81, [2010] RTR 284, [2010] CP Rep 27
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Froom 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:
Cited – Williams 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, Negligence, Road Traffic
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.401795
