header-logo header-logo

25 March 2010 / Karen O’Sullivan
Issue: 7410 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Belt up?

Denning’s guidelines stand the test of time, says Karen O’Sullivan

During Lord Denning’s 20 year tenure as Master of the Rolls and head of the civil side of the Court of Appeal he had an enormous impact upon the development of the law and was credited for his simple, clear and direct style of judgment. In celebrated decisions he championed the deserted wife and gave property rights to cohabitees. Somewhat less famous, but nonetheless important to those dealing with personal injury claims, were the guidelines he provided for apportioning liability in cases where a claimant fails to wear a seatbelt.

His judgment in Froom v Butcher [1975] 3 All ER 520 sets out an easy to follow formula:
l  If the failure to wear a seatbelt made no difference to the injuries sustained then there should be no deduction for contributory negligence.
l If the seatbelt would have reduced the claimant’s injuries then a deduction of 15% should be made for contributory negligence.
l If the injuries would have been entirely avoided by the claimant wearing a seatbelt

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll