Page 28 - Insurance Times October 2023

a dust-cart. He was aware of the danger of such a practice. seat passenger in a taxi driven by the defendant who lost
The dust-cart was being overtaken by one of the control of the vehicle when it skidded on ice and collided
defendant's buses when a collision occurred; the husband with another vehicle. Plaintiff's head was propelled forward
was killed. The driver of the dust-cart, the driver of the bus by the impact and struck a structural pillar beside the
and the husband were all held to have been negligent, the windscreen. This resulted in severe spinal fractures and
husband because of the dangerous manner in which he was rendered him tetraplegic. At the time of the accident
riding on the dust-cart. The deceased was therefore held plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt. The claimant relied upon
to have been guilty of contributory negligence and the the guidance set out by Lord Denning in the landmark case
widow's damages reduced proportionately. of Froom v Butcher and argued that the deduction for
contributory negligence should be limited to 15% as even
Denning LJ opined that causation was the 'decisive factor' with a seatbelt in use, the Claimant would have suffered
in the exercise. But that view has not been popular in more some form of injury.
recent decisions. The modern approach is that
blameworthiness and so-called 'causal potency' is equally HHJ Platts disagreed and noted that it was agreed by both
important factors. parties that the claimants head striking the pillar of the taxi
would have been prevented if he had been wearing a seatbelt.
In Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286, the plaintiff's car was in He concluded that in that sense the injury sustained in the
a collision with the defendant's car caused by the accident would have been prevented altogether and
defendant's negligence. At the time of the accident the therefore that the appropriate deduction was 25%.
plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt. His injuries were worse Lord Justice Kitchin upheld the decision made by HHJ Platts and
than they would have been if he had been wearing a seat refused permission to appeal. Lord Justice Kitchin concluded
belt. It was held by the Court of Appeal that his damages
that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
should be reduced by 20 per cent. The standard of care was
to be judged objectively and the prudent man would wear UK Supreme Court (3:2) in a recent decision of Jackson v
a seat belt unless there were exceptional circumstances. Murray [2015] UKSC 5 has reduced the contributory
negligence of a 13 year old girl to 50% who was severely
Lord Denning MR: injured when, stepping out from behind a minibus to cross
"The question is not what the cause of the accident was. It a country road, struck by a car. The driver of the car, who
is rather what was the cause of the damage. In most had seen the minibus but had not contemplated anyone
accidents on the road the bad driving which causes the trying to alight from it and immediately cross the road, was
accident also causes the ensuing damage. But, in seatbelt driving too fast. He failed properly to observe the road
cases, the cause of the accident is one thing. The cause of conditions, and had not seen the girl when she stepped out.
the damage is another. The accident is caused by the bad Had he been driving at a reasonable speed, and had he been
driving. The damage is caused in part by the bad driving of properly observing the road conditions, he would not have
the defendant and in part by the failure of the plaintiff to hit the girl. Trial court attributed 90% contributory
wear a seatbelt. If the plaintiff was to blame in not wearing negligence to her, which on appeal was reduced to 70%,
a seatbelt, the damage is in part the result of his own fault. against which girl appealed to the Supreme Court.
He must bear some share in the responsibility for the
damage and his damages fall to be reduced to such extent
as the court thinks just and equitable."

The first test that must be passed is the 'but for' test for
factual causation.

After this case law was amended in England and now it has
been made a criminal offence not to wear a seat belt in the
front seat of a car. There are certain exceptions to this, such
as pregnant women.

Froom v Butcher was recently revisited in Pearson v Anwar
14th October 2014, the plaintiff was travelling as a front

The Insurance Times October 2023 27