Pearson v Anwar

Where a passenger’s failure to wear a seat belt prevents a catastrophic injury but leaves only a trivial and wholly different injury, the residual injury may be treated as de minimis. The case falls within the second category in Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286, supporting a 25 per cent reduction in damages. The nature and impact of the residual injury are relevant. Established seat-belt guidelines remain important, and the defendant’s greater blameworthiness does not by itself make the case exceptional.

The claimant was a front-seat passenger in the defendant’s taxi when it skidded on ice and collided with another vehicle. He was not wearing a seat belt and suffered permanent tetraplegia. The trial judge found that wearing a seat belt would have prevented the spinal injury, although the claimant would probably have suffered a modest whiplash injury lasting three to six months.

Applying Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286 and referring to Stanton v Collinson [2010] EWCA Civ 81, His Honour Judge Platts reduced the damages by 25 per cent for contributory negligence. Permission to appeal was refused on paper. The claimant sought reconsideration at an oral hearing, arguing that the residual whiplash injury placed the case in the 15 per cent category and that the defendant’s greater blameworthiness made it exceptional.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant had no real prospect of successfully appealing the 25 per cent reduction.
2. Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286 provides three categories for failure to wear a seat belt: no reduction where the failure made no difference; a 25 per cent reduction where wearing the belt would have prevented the damage altogether; and a 15 per cent reduction where the failure made a considerable difference but some substantial injury would still have occurred.
3. The relevant injury was the claimant’s catastrophic tetraplegia, caused by fracture dislocation of the spine and spinal-cord damage. The notional whiplash injury was trivial by comparison and wholly different in its impact. It could therefore be treated as de minimis. In practical terms, the failure to wear the belt made all the difference to the injury for which compensation was claimed. The case properly fell within the second Froom category, notwithstanding that some injury would probably have remained.
4. Stanton v Collinson [2010] EWCA Civ 81 confirmed that, where a seat belt would or might have made a lesser difference than a considerable difference, the court need not investigate the precise extent of that difference to order a reduction of less than 15 per cent. That decision did not assist the claimant on these facts.
5. The judge was entitled to regard the case as non-exceptional and to follow the Froom guidelines. The defendant’s greater blameworthiness did not give rise to a real prospect of appellate interference with the 25 per cent reduction.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 22 July 2015, Lord Justice Kitchin dismissed the oral application to reconsider the refusal of permission to appeal.
• Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry — His Honour Judge Platts, sitting as a High Court judge, reduced the claimant’s damages by 25 per cent for contributory negligence on 14 October 2014.
• Paper permission decision — Dame Janet Smith refused permission to appeal on 15 January 2015.