Jones v Livox Quarries, Ltd.

Contributory negligence depends on whether the claimant ought reasonably to have foreseen harm to himself and whether his lack of care was a cause of the damage. It does not require a breach of duty owed to the defendant. Causation is assessed by ordinary common sense. The claimant’s fault need only be one contributing cause, and the precise manner of injury need not have been foreseeable. A claimant who rides in a dangerous position on a vehicle may therefore bear part of the loss where that position worsens injury in a collision. The Court of Appeal should not disturb a trial judge’s damages assessment merely because it would have awarded more.

The claimant, an employee at the defendants’ quarry, rode on the towbar of a traxcavator despite an employer’s prohibition. A following dumper negligently collided with it, causing severe injuries and the amputation of both legs.

Mr Justice Hallett found the dumper driver negligent but held that the claimant’s conduct contributed to the accident. He awarded damages subject to a one-fifth reduction under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. The claimant appealed against the finding of contributory negligence and the assessment of damages. The defendants cross-appealed, arguing that their driver was not negligent and that no duty was owed in the circumstances. The central questions were whether the claimant’s position causally contributed to his injuries and whether the damages assessment could be disturbed.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the claimant’s appeal and the defendants’ cross-appeal, with costs. The trial judgment therefore stood, including the one-fifth reduction and the award of four-fifths of the assessed damages.

1. Negligence of the dumper driver. The driver failed to keep a proper lookout and was negligent. The fact that the claimant was riding on the traxcavator against orders did not remove the duty owed to a person who might reasonably be expected to be in the vehicle’s path.
2. Contributory negligence and causation. Singleton LJ held that contributory negligence required lack of reasonable care for the claimant’s own safety and causal contribution to the damage; it did not require a breach of duty owed to the defendants. Denning LJ explained that foreseeability concerns the claimant’s negligence, but is not the decisive test of causation. The question was which faults caused the injury, assessed in ordinary common sense. The claimant’s dangerous position exposed him to the risk of being struck in the collision, so his conduct contributed to the damage even though the dumper driver’s negligence was the principal cause. Hodson LJ agreed that the danger extended beyond falling from the vehicle and included injury from a following vehicle. The pleading sufficiently raised that case. The one-fifth apportionment was upheld under sections 1 and 4 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
3. Damages. The award covered loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge’s assessment unless it was radically wrong, inordinately low, or wholly erroneous. The fact that the appellate judges might have awarded more was insufficient.
4. Additional reasoning. Denning LJ stated that the doctrine of last opportunity was obsolete and did not follow the approach in McLaughlin v Long. Those observations provided additional support for the causation analysis.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
2. Cardiff Assizes: Mr Justice Hallett found negligence by the dumper driver, contributory negligence by the claimant assessed at one-fifth, and awarded damages accordingly.