Parkinson v Dyfed Powys Police

In apportioning responsibility for injury where both parties are at fault, the court must assess the relative causative potency of their faults, including their respective contributions to the occurrence and severity of the injury. Seat-belt authorities are not an appropriate analogy where the claimant’s conduct helped cause the collision and the defendant’s driving materially increased the injuries. An appellate court should not interfere with an apportionment merely because another percentage might be selected, where the trial judge applied the correct approach and the result falls within the proper spectrum of reasonable disagreement.

The claimant suffered very serious injuries after walking into the path of a police car. The trial judge found both parties responsible, attributing 65 per cent responsibility to the defendant and 35 per cent to the claimant. The defendant sought permission to appeal, arguing that the apportionment should resemble the seat-belt cases, particularly Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286, because the collision was inevitable. The renewed application concerned the validity of that analogy and whether the apportionment disclosed an error of law.

1. Application refused. The court, in the judgment of Lord Justice Latham, with which the President agreed, found no proper basis for permission to appeal.
2. The proposed analogy with seat-belt cases was unsound. Those cases concern a claimant’s failure to take a precaution to avoid or reduce injury to himself or herself. The present case concerned the driver’s responsibility to others and the extent to which negligent driving caused or increased the claimant’s injuries. The reference to Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286 therefore did not assist the defendant.
3. In assessing relative causative potency, the judge was entitled to distinguish between the parties’ contributions to the accident and their contributions to the seriousness of the resulting injuries. The claimant’s fault contributed to the collision. The police officer’s excessive speed in a built-up area materially increased the injury. The evidence showed that the serious secondary and tertiary injuries would have been avoided if the police car had been driven at an appropriate speed.
4. The trial judge’s approach to apportionment was impeccable. The fact that another judge might have selected a different percentage did not disclose an error of law. Any variation would fall within the spectrum in which judges may properly disagree, and there was no qualitative mistake in the allocation of 65 per cent responsibility to the defendant and 35 per cent to the claimant. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 10 June 2004, the court refused the renewed application for permission to appeal: [2004] EWCA Civ 802.
• Swansea County Court: His Honour Judge Graham Jones, in a decision dated 10 March 2004, apportioned responsibility for the injuries 65 per cent to the defendant and 35 per cent to the claimant.