Stanton v Collinson: QBD 2 Mar 2009

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 the provisions of the 1945 Act and to the decision in Froom, the damages recoverable by this Claimant should not be reduced by reason of his failure to wear a seat belt. He is, consequently, entitled to recover damages on a full liability basis.
Cox J
[2009] EWHC 342 (QB)
Bailii
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
CitedGawler v Raettig CA 3-Dec-2007
The parties had resolved their claims of negligence, but asked the court to set the level of contributory negligence even though the appeal was academic.
Held: The court refused leave to appeal, but stated that its judgment could be reported. . .
CitedGawler v Raettig CA 3-Dec-2007
The parties had resolved their claims of negligence, but asked the court to set the level of contributory negligence even though the appeal was academic.
Held: The court refused leave to appeal, but stated that its judgment could be reported. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.314303