Luxton v Raja

Contributory negligence in a road collision requires an apportionment exercise based on the causative potency and blameworthiness of each party’s conduct. The assessment is fact-sensitive and evaluative; it does not seek a uniquely correct percentage. A driver must respect the speed limit and anticipate ordinary hazards of an urban road. A driver crossing the path of oncoming traffic must wait until there is a safe gap. Where both drivers create substantial hazards, equal apportionment may be just and equitable. A separate finding about seatbelt use may be made where it could affect compensation for resulting injuries.

The claimant suffered life-changing brain damage when her car, emerging from parked vehicles to turn across the road or make a U-turn, was struck by the defendant’s approaching car. The defendant was driving substantially above the 30 mph speed limit.

The court determined each driver’s responsibility for the collision and whether the claimant was wearing her seatbelt, because that finding could affect the assessment of compensation.

1. Both drivers acted unsafely and both acts caused the collision. The defendant’s excessive speed materially increased the risk and severity of the collision. The claimant started a manoeuvre across oncoming traffic when it could not safely be completed.
2. The court applied the approach in Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5, considering relative causative potency and blameworthiness. Apportionment was fact-sensitive and evaluative; a uniquely correct percentage was unnecessary.
3. The court found no sufficient distinction between the drivers’ negligence. Liability was apportioned equally: 50% to the defendant and 50% contributory negligence to the claimant.
4. Under Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286, failure to wear a seatbelt may reduce compensation where wearing one would have prevented or lessened the injuries. The claimant was probably wearing her seatbelt.