header-logo header-logo

05 August 2010 / Roger Harris
Issue: 7429 / Categories: Features , Professional negligence , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Taking the blame

Roger Harris assesses cases involving contributory negligence & diagnostic failure

Since the decision of the Court of Appeal in Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286, [1975] 3 All ER 520  the maximum reduction likely to be awarded for failure to wear a seat belt is 25%. And since Owens v Brimmell [1977] QB 859, 3 All ER 765 the figure of 20% is commonly regarded as the appropriate reduction for a claimant who has got into a vehicle when he must have known that the driver had had too much to drink.

In Best v Smyth [2010] EWHC 1541 (QB), [2010] All ER (D) 210 (Jun) the court had to consider (in the context of an application for an interim payment) whether a claimant who got into a vehicle with a man he must have known to be drunk and then subsequently failed to wear a seat belt might have his damages reduced by as much as 50% for contributory negligence.

Tugenhdart J concluded that there was no support in any authority for

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll