Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Road Accident Liability (Failure to wear a seatbelt (Has been compulsory…
Road Accident Liability
Failure to wear a seatbelt
Has been compulsory to wear a seatbelt in the front of a car since 1983 and rear seat passengers since 1991
Failure to wear a seatbelt can result in a defence of contributory negligence under Hogan v Smith [1991] for rear seat passengers and Froom v Butcher [1975] for front seat passengers
Failure of parents to properly secure a seatbelt to a child creates a right for the child to sue the parents as set out in Williams v Williams [2013]
Motor cyclists can be found to be contributory negligent if they fail to wear a helmet under O'Connell v Jackson [1971]
Cyclists may also be found contributory negligible if they fail to wear a helmet under Smith v Finch [2009]
Reduction of damages
Lord Dennings set out reduction guidelines in Froom v Bitcher [1975]
0% if C would have suffered the same level of injuries
15% if injuries would have been a 'good deal less severe'
25% if C wouldn't have been injured if the belt was worn
Excuses
3 rejected excuses in Froom
Refusing to wear it as it could prove to be dangerous
Not being told by the driver to wear it
Forgot to wear the seatbelt
Some excuses have succeeded
Belt may be defective
Reversing or accompanying a learner driver
C had a physical condition to make strap do more harm than good
C is performing a specific job such as a policeman escorting others
C had phobia about being trapped in an accident
Travelling with a Drunk Driver
Defence of consent cannot apply in this situation, meaning that by travelling with a drunk driver, your damages cannot be reduced
Contributory Negligence
Owens v Brimmell set up 2 grounds for con neg.
If the passenger, knowing that he is going to be driven, accompanies the driver on a bout of drinking which robs him of clear thought and reduces ability to drive safely
Usual reduction is 20%, but can be more or less depending on blameworthiness
If the passenger rides with a driver who he knows has drunk so much alcohol as to impair to a dangerous degree his ability to drive safely, but there is no pre-planning so that no bout of drinking is intended
Usual deduction only 10%
Excuses
Barker v Official Solicitor [1981]
Knowledge of drunkenness, but not of the dangers that could be faced
Malone v Rowan [1984]
D must prove C had knowledge of drunkenness otherwise no reduction
Traynor v Donovan [1978]
Symptoms of excessive drinking are not apparent to a lay person
Where D appears normal, C is not required to interrogate him on his level of alcohol consumption
If drunkenness was not the cause of the accident, then it cannot be used as a defence