An Update on Seat Belts and Contributory Negligence

Motorists who are caught driving without a seat belt will now be fined £60. The Department for Transport reported that annually about 565 people die in traffic accidents for failing to wear a seatbelt and in 2007 over 300 of these almost certainly would have survived had they been belted in.

 

The main issue for insurers to consider in claims where the issue of seat belts arises is contributory negligence. Insurers will be well aware that where a claimant is injured in a road traffic accident, then damages should be reduced for contributory negligence where it is established that a seatbelt was not worn and the injuries would have been either prevented or less severe had it been used.

 

The recent case of Stanton v Collinson (2010) has reiterated and clarified the law on contributory negligence for failure to wear a seatbelt. In Stanton the defendant appealed the High Court decision and took the case to the Court of Appeal earlier this year. The High Court judge had declined to reduce the damages for contributory negligence on the grounds that it had not been shown that a seatbelt, if worn, would not have reduced the injuries suffered “to a considerable extent”. The High Court granted the Claimant damages in full even though he had failed to wear a seat belt.

 

The Defendant argued that the Court of Appeal should revisit the decision in Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286, and that the levels of contributory negligence attributable to failure to wear a seat belt should be significantly increased in the light of developments over the intervening thirty years or so. Insurers will recall that in Froom v Butcher the question was not what or who caused the accident but “what was the cause of the damage?” It was held that unless a case was “rare and exceptional” there should be a reduction for contributory negligence of 25% for a failure to wear a seatbelt where the injuries could have been prevented. If the injuries would have been less severe by wearing a seatbelt then a 15% reduction for contributory negligence applies.

 

In Stanton, a 16 year old claimant and three other teenage passengers were travelling in a car driven by the defendant. The car was being driven at excess speed when a collision occurred, killing the defendant driver and leaving the claimant with severe head injuries. The claimant had been travelling in the front passenger seat, with another passenger sitting on his lap. None of the occupants had been wearing seatbelts. Primary liability had been admitted by the defendant’s estate.

 

The issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the severity of the claimant’s impact would have been reduced had he worn a seatbelt thereby reducing the severity of his injuries. It was for the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that if the claimant had worn a seatbelt then his injuries would have been either prevented or a good deal less severe.

 

Both the claimant and the defendant had instructed experienced road accident safety engineers and they had reached agreement prior to the trial that a properly worn seatbelt would probably have been beneficial in reducing the severity of the head injury suffered, but complete prevention of serious head injury would have been unlikely. Neither party had instructed a medical expert. The High Court had accepted the engineers’ evidence but  concluded that their evidence offered no assistance in resolving the issue of whether the claimant would have sustained less severe injuries by wearing a seatbelt. A large aspect of the difficulty in this case arose from the conclusions in the experts’ joint report that serious head injury was likely even with a seat belt. The High Court had concluded that the experts’ joint report had left a number of uncertainties which could only be determined by specialist medical evidence. It was concluded that either a neurosurgeon or neurologist, would be able to provide a medical opinion on the issue in question and this was required to resolve the uncertainties. On the current evidence it had not been proved that a seat belt would have reduced the injuries.

 

The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court Judge had been entitled to say that the expert’s evidence left her unable to say that causation was proved on the balance of probabilities and that medical evidence was required. However the Court of Appeal also commented that this did not mean that medical evidence was required in every seat belt or head injury case. Each case depended on its own facts and what was appropriate in relation to each type of case. The defendant’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

 

The Court of Appeal also stated that there may be unusual cases where neither of the two brackets of contributory negligence contemplated by Froom v Butcher was appropriate. The reduction should be what appears just and equitable by the Court.

 

It was made clear in this case that the principles outlined in Froom are still binding. The Court of Appeal considered that there was powerful public interest in preventing a prolonged or intensive enquiry into these types of cases concerning fine degrees of contributory negligence, so that the vast majorities of cases can be settled according to a well understood formula and those which do reach trial do not spiral out of control. This is therefore a welcome decision for Insurers in that not all cases will require medical evidence and costs can be contained. Froom v Butcher is set to remain good law.

 

Emma Cahill, Solicitor and Sarah Dalton, Trainee Solicitor, of Langleys