Stanton v Collinson

Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, a claimant’s failure to wear a seat belt reduces damages only where the defendant proves that the failure caused or materially worsened the injury. The guidance in Froom v Butcher remains binding and applicable in the great majority of cases. Departure is reserved for rare and fact-sensitive exceptional cases. Engineering evidence that restraint would have reduced impact severity may be insufficient where medical evidence is needed to establish the likely reduction in brain injury and cognitive impairment. Where the defendant fails to prove that the claimant’s injuries would probably have been substantially less severe, no deduction is made.

Primary liability for a serious road accident was admitted on behalf of the deceased driver. The claimant, aged 16, had been travelling in the front passenger area of a small coupé with another passenger, and neither wore a seat belt. The defendant alleged contributory negligence based on non-use of a seat belt, shared occupancy of the front passenger seat, encouragement to drive fast, and alcohol consumption.

The alcohol allegation was abandoned. The central issues were whether the claimant had encouraged excessive speed, whether he was the primary or secondary occupant of the front passenger seat, and whether his failure to wear a seat belt causatively worsened his injuries so as to justify a reduction under the 1945 Act.

1. Seat-belt guidance. The court applied the guidance in Froom v Butcher, under which damages are not reduced where wearing a seat belt would have made no difference; a 15 per cent reduction is the usual guideline where the injuries would have been considerably less severe; and a 25 per cent reduction is the usual guideline where the injuries would have been prevented. The figures are guidelines for the great majority of cases, not an immutable ceiling.
2. Exceptional cases. The possibility of a higher reduction in rare and exceptional cases, recognised in J (A Child) v Wilkins, is fact-sensitive. The unusual fact that two people shared the front passenger seat did not make this case exceptional. The claimant was a young passenger who may simply have accepted an arrangement imposed by the driver. The driver’s conduct was itself extremely serious.
3. Proof of causation. The defendant bore the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the claimant’s injuries would have been a good deal less severe if he had worn a seat belt. The engineering evidence established that a seat belt would probably have reduced the severity of the head impact, but also indicated that serious head injury would probably have remained. It did not establish the likely residual cognitive effects. That issue required medical, probably neurological, evidence, which was absent. There was also no evidence that the hand injury would have been prevented or reduced.
4. Other allegations and order. The defendant failed to prove that the claimant deliberately encouraged the driver to speed. In any event, the evidence did not establish causation. The claimant’s damages were therefore not reduced for contributory negligence. He was entitled to recover damages on a full liability basis.