Froom v Butcher
A car occupant who fails to wear a seat belt is contributorily negligent, and the damages should normally be reduced by 25 per cent if wearing it would have prevented the injury, or 15 per cent if it would have made them less severe.
Facts
Mr Froom was driving his car when it was hit by another car driven negligently by Mr Butcher. Mr Froom was not wearing a seat belt, because he did not like wearing it and was worried about being trapped in a crash. He suffered head and chest injuries and a broken finger, which would have been prevented or reduced if he had been wearing a belt. At the time, wearing a seat belt was not compulsory.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Froom was contributorily negligent and reduced his damages. Lord Denning MR said that the question is not what caused the accident, but what caused the damage. A person who fails to wear a seat belt should have his damages reduced by 25 per cent if the injuries would have been prevented altogether by wearing a belt, and by 15 per cent if the injuries would have been less severe. If wearing a belt would have made no difference, there should be no reduction. Mr Froom's damages were reduced by 20 per cent, because some of his injuries would have been prevented.
Related cases on defences and damages
- Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966
- Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33, [2009] 1 AC 1339
- H West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326
- Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43, [2021] AC 563
- Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656
- Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5, [2015] 2 All ER 805
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
