Froom v Butcher

An adult driver or front-seat passenger who fails to wear an available seat belt is ordinarily contributorily negligent if wearing it would have prevented or lessened the injury. The issue is the cause of the damage, not merely the cause of the accident. The assessment is objective. Personal belief, forgetfulness, minority practice and the absence of an apparent high-risk journey do not ordinarily excuse the omission.

Under Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, damages must be reduced to the extent that is just and equitable for the claimant’s share in the damage. No reduction is proper where a seat belt would have made no difference. The court gave practical guidance of 25% where injury would have been wholly avoided and 15% where it would have been materially less severe.

Froom v Butcher arose from a head-on collision caused by the defendant’s negligent driving. The claimant driver was not wearing the fitted seat belt. His head and chest injuries would probably have been prevented by its use, although his broken finger would not have been.

Nield J held on 24 June 1974 that failure to wear a seat belt was not contributory negligence. He indicated that, if wrong, he would reduce the damages by 20%. The defendant appealed. The central issue was whether a blameless victim of the collision should have damages reduced because an available seat belt would have prevented or reduced some of the injury.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Denning MR gave the reasons, with which Lawton and Scarman LJJ agreed. The judgment was reduced by £100, reflecting an overall 20% reduction.

2. Contributory negligence concerns a claimant’s failure to take reasonable care for his or her own safety. It differs from negligence causing the accident. Under section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, the relevant inquiry is whether the claimant’s fault contributed to the damage. A defendant’s bad driving may cause the accident, while the claimant’s omission to wear a seat belt may cause part of the resulting injury.

3. It was ordinarily prudent for drivers and adult front-seat passengers to wear available seat belts whenever travelling. The standard is objective. A sincerely held contrary belief, the fact that others do not use seat belts, forgetfulness, or the absence of an evidently dangerous journey did not displace that standard. An exception could arise where the belt was reasonably likely to do more harm than good, such as for an unduly fat person or a pregnant woman.

4. The reduction must be just and equitable, having regard to causal potency and blameworthiness. The court gave practical guidance: no reduction where the belt would have made no difference; 25% where it would have prevented the relevant injuries entirely; and 15% where it would have made a considerable but incomplete difference. Here the head and chest injuries were avoidable, but the finger injury was not. The judge’s alternative overall reduction of 20% was not disturbed.

There was no order as to costs.

• Court of Appeal: allowed the defendant’s appeal and reduced the judgment by £100.
• High Court: Nield J held that the claimant’s failure to wear a seat belt was not contributory negligence, while indicating an alternative reduction of 20% if that conclusion were wrong.