Seat Belts, Cycle Helmets And The Law

Seatbelts

The well established starting point is that of Froom v. Butcher [1976] QB 286, where the Court decided 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, 15% contributory negligence was to be applied.

 

In Gawler v. Raettig [2007]EWHC 373 (QB) and Gleeson v. Court [2007] EWHC 2397 (QB) the Courts’ approach to deductions for contributory negligence for failure to wear a seatbelt was re-affirmed. In Gawler, the Claimant, travelling as a front seat passenger, sustained severe injuries when the driver of the car in which he was travelling lost control as he approached a bend. The Claimant was ejected from the car and he was not wearing a seatbelt. Had the Claimant been wearing his seatbelt, he would only have sustained minor injuries. Primary liability was admitted. However the Defendant sought to argue that a reduction of 50% should be applied, on the basis that public awareness of seatbelt use had changed since Froom was handed down. They said this case was so “rare and exceptional” that it justified a greater reduction. The Court considered that whilst wearing a seat belt had become compulsory since Froom, consideration of public policy did not require any reconsideration of the Court’s approach in Froom and there was nothing to justify a departure from the usual reduction of 25%.

 

In the case of Gleeson v. Court [2007], the Claimant had volunteered to travel in the boot of the Defendant’s car, knowing that the Defendant driver had consumed excess alcohol. The Defendant lost control of the vehicle and the Claimant sustained serious injuries. The issue was the appropriate reduction of the Claimant’s damages for his own conduct. The Court considered that the accident was caused by the driving of the intoxicated Defendant. The next issue to address was that the Claimant had travelled with a drunk-driver and failed to wear a seatbelt. It was held that the usual reduction under Owens v Brimmell [1977] for travelling with a drunk driver of 20% should be applied. When considering a reduction for failure to wear a seatbelt, the Court held that the standard Froom reduction of 25% should apply. The Court felt that to apply the reductions cumulatively to reach a 45% reduction would be wrong and the Court ultimately concluded that an appropriate reduction would be 30%.

 

The decision in Gleeson is questionable. Had the Claimant overlooked fastening his seatbelt, the standard reduction of 25% would have been applied but he willingly got into the boot of a car driven by a drunk driver and was only penalised by a further 5% reduction in damages.

 

The most recent case on the issue of seatbelt use is Stanton v. Collinson [2009] EWHC 342 (QB). The Claimant (who had only just turned 16) 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 serious 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 was admitted and the Court had to consider the appropriate reduction for the Claimant’s failure to wear a seatbelt The Defendant argued that a departure from the approach in Froom was justified in consideration of the modern position regarding seatbelt use. They argued that a revised approach should be to apply a 50% reduction if the injuries would have been prevented, and a 2/3 reduction if they would have been less severe.

 

It was held that whilst two passengers sharing the front seat was an “unusual feature” of the case, it did not bring it within the “rare and exceptional” scenario referred to in Froom that would justify any departure from the standard deductions. It was reiterated that the negligent driver must bear the greatest share of liability. The Defendants in Stanton failed to establish that the Claimant’s injuries would have been less severe had a seatbelt been worn and the Claimant was permitted to recover damages in full.

 

Guidance has now been given in respect of reductions to damages for a failure to wear a cycle helmet. In the recent case of Smith v. Finch [2009] EWHC 53 (QB) the Claimant was riding his bicycle without a cycle helmet. He suffered serious head injuries when he was involved in a collision with the Defendant’s motorcycle. The Defendant was found liable for the accident but sought to allege contributory negligence against the Claimant for failing to wear a cycle helmet. The Court, placing reliance on Froom and referring to the Highway Code, held that failure to wear a cycle helmet could indeed amount to contributory negligence. The fact that there was no legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets did not alter the position. However, the burden was on the Defendant to show that not only had the Claimant failed to take reasonable steps to ensure their own safety in failing to wear a helmet, but that that failure was a contributory cause of the damage. It followed that no reduction was applied. The Court did not consider the Claimant’s injuries would have been prevented or made less severe had a helmet been worn.

 

The Courts have been asked to grapple with the issue of contributory negligence many times over the 30 years since Froom was decided. However, notwithstanding the widely differing circumstances of each case, none has been considered “rare and exceptional” and each time the standard reduction for failure to use a seatbelt has been re-affirmed and the approach laid down in Froom followed. This is despite the fact that when Froom was decided it was not compulsory to wear a seatbelt and that public awareness of the critical importance of doing so has risen hugely in the intervening years. This seems somewhat anomalous yet it has not hampered its repeated affirmation in recent years and it would appear the guidelines given in Froom are set to remain for some time yet.  

 

Presently, there is no legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.  As Cox J stated in Stanton, the approach laid out in Froom “had stood the test of time and continued to do so, for good reason”.  It will remain to be seen whether the decision in Smith will prove to be as forward-looking as the Judgment proved to be in Froom.

 

Emma Cahill

Solicitor in the Motor Unit

Langleys Solicitors