Introduction
The Contributory Negligence Act represents a significant modification to the common law doctrine of contributory negligence. This legal concept addresses situations where a claimant's own negligence contributes to the harm they have suffered, alongside the negligence of another party. The Act, enacted to rectify perceived injustices, moves away from the complete bar to recovery imposed by the common law, instead allowing for a more equitable apportionment of damages. Key requirements for the Act's application include the presence of fault on the part of both the defendant and the claimant, where 'fault' is defined as negligence, breach of statutory duty, or any other act or omission that gives rise to tort liability. It is critical to understand this Act to fully comprehend personal injury claims and the reduction of awarded damages.
Understanding the Core Principles of Contributory Negligence
The common law defence of contributory negligence, prior to the Act, acted as a complete bar to a claimant's recovery. If it was established that a claimant had contributed in any way to their injuries, they could not recover any damages, regardless of the extent of the defendant’s fault. The Contributory Negligence Act was introduced to ameliorate this harsh result by enabling a reduction of damages rather than a complete bar. The primary legal principle embedded in the Act is that "where any person suffers damage as the result partly of their own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons," the damages recoverable will be reduced to such extent as the court considers "just and equitable," taking into account the claimant's responsibility for the damage. This principle allows courts to adopt a more nuanced approach when determining liability. Crucially, the Act does not interfere with defenses arising under a contract.
How the Act Operates: Apportionment of Damages
The core mechanism of the Contributory Negligence Act is the apportionment of damages. When a court determines that a claimant has been partly at fault for their injuries, it first assesses the total damages that would have been awarded if the claimant had been entirely without fault. Once this figure is determined, the court then calculates the extent to which the claimant's negligence contributed to the harm suffered. This calculation leads to a proportionate reduction in the total damages awarded, meaning the claimant does not receive the total damages, but rather, a reduced sum reflecting their share of responsibility. In Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] AC 328, the House of Lords clarified that this process involves two distinct stages: first, the determination of the claimant's contributory negligence, and second, the apportionment of liability between multiple defendants, which is separate from the determination of the claimant’s fault.
Defining 'Fault' Under the Contributory Negligence Act
The term 'fault' as defined by the Act is wide-ranging and specifically includes "negligence, breach of statutory duty or other act or omission which gives rise to liability in tort or would, apart from this Act, give rise to the defence of contributory negligence". This definition broadens the scope of conduct that can be regarded as contributory negligence. It demonstrates that 'fault' is not limited to negligent acts but also includes any conduct that contributes to the damage suffered by the claimant, irrespective of its classification as a tort. This definition helps determine instances that are beyond simple negligence, such as ignoring safety rules, which can qualify as ‘fault’ under the Act, thereby affecting damage awards.
Contributory Negligence: Application in Case Law
Several key cases demonstrate the practical application of the Contributory Negligence Act. In Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286, the court considered the case of a claimant injured in a car accident who was not wearing a seatbelt. The Court of Appeal determined that the claimant’s failure to wear a seatbelt constituted contributory negligence, resulting in a 20% reduction in damages, because his head and chest injuries could have been prevented had he been wearing one. This case established that, in the determination of contributory negligence, the focus is not on the cause of the accident but the cause of the damage. In Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5, the Supreme Court emphasized that the apportionment of damages for contributory negligence should take into account both the blameworthiness and causative potencies of the parties’ actions. The court reduced the damages by 50% as the parties were equally responsible. This ruling indicates that when assessing liability, the court should balance the comparative responsibility for the accident.
Another example can be found in Targett v Torfaen BC [1992] 3 All ER 27, where a tenant who was injured using a poorly designed stairway was found to be contributorily negligent for not taking greater precautions, demonstrating that even when a duty is owed, the claimant's actions still have a bearing on their recovery. Finally, Spencer v Wincanton Holdings [2009] EWCA Civ 1404, established that a victim’s unreasonable act must be very high to break the chain of causation, otherwise, courts will apply the defence of contributory negligence.
Cases Where Contributory Negligence Does Not Apply
The Contributory Negligence Act does not apply to all areas of law. It does not, for instance, apply in instances of assault and battery. This principle was clarified in Co-operative Group Ltd v Pritchard [2011] EWCA Civ 329, where it was established that because the common law defence of contributory negligence does not apply to these torts, neither does the Act. Furthermore, in Lane v Holloway [1968] 1 QB 379, it was ruled that provocation does not amount to fault under s1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. Barclays Bank Ltd v Fairclough Building Ltd [1994] 3 WLR 1057 held that contributory negligence does not apply where a defendant has failed to take proper precautions in cleaning a roof and thus had breached their contract.
Contributory Negligence and Illegality
The interplay between contributory negligence and the defence of illegality presents another area of complexity. Illegality can act as a complete bar to a claim, especially when parties are engaged in a joint illegal enterprise. In Pitts v Hunt [1991] 1 QB 24, the court determined that the defence of illegality can apply where the cause of the claimant's damage stems from the claimant's own unlawful conduct. In the context of illegal activities, the defence of illegality is favoured over contributory negligence. However, where one party's actions are out of proportion to the unlawful activity, then damages can still be sought. Contributory negligence is not meant to act as a complete bar to a claim and is normally used to reduce damages only, hence why the court found it inapplicable in the above case. Lane v Holloway [1968] 1 QB 379 demonstrated that in instances of a fight that is out of proportion, the defences of illegality and voluntary assumption of risk do not apply.
Contributory Negligence in Specific Contexts
The application of contributory negligence is context specific. In the workplace context, there may be instances where employers have neglected their statutory duty, yet the injured party’s actions also contribute to the incident. In Bux v Slough Metals [1973] 1 WLR 1358, the court considered the duty of an employer to ensure employees wear appropriate safety equipment. Here the employer was found in breach of statutory duty for failing to ensure their employee used protective goggles, but there was a 40% reduction in damages due to the employee’s contributory negligence.
In John Summers & Sons Ltd v Frost [1955] AC 740, the House of Lords confirmed that employers have an absolute duty to protect workers under s14(1) Factories Act 1937 and no contributory negligence applied. This case illustrates the complexity of applying statutory duties in the context of contributory negligence. Similarly, Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152 considered liability when an employee was injured by an unsafe machine. It was held that an employer may be liable unless the accident was “wholly or in part by the omission of the workman”. In contrast, Bowater v Rowley Regis Corpn [1944] KB 476, provides an example of where an employee, knowing a horse was dangerous and had previously run away, was ordered to use it. Here the court found the employer liable and the defence of volenti non fit injuria inapplicable as the employee’s actions were compelled, not voluntary.
The Act and Children
The application of contributory negligence in situations involving children requires careful consideration. In Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co Ltd [1949] AC 386, it was determined that it could not be said that a child had failed to take reasonable care for their own safety. Additionally, in Gough v Thorne [1966] 1 WLR 1387, the court determined that children should only be found guilty of contributory negligence if they were old enough to be reasonably expected to take precautions for their own safety. These cases demonstrate a lower standard of care expected from children in comparison to adults. Cases like Morales v Eccleston [1991] RTR 151, show that whilst a child may be found to be contributorily negligent, a judge will take their young age into account.
Contributory Negligence and Suicide
The interaction of contributory negligence with suicide attempts or death raises difficult legal questions. In Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360, the House of Lords addressed a situation where a prisoner committed suicide while in police custody. The police were found liable in negligence and damages were reduced by 50% due to the deceased's contributory negligence as they were partly responsible for their own death. Here the courts held that fault under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 could include intentional acts. However, in St George v Home Office [2008] EWCA Civ 1068, the court held that a claimant's previous drug abuse was too remote from the negligence of prison staff to amount to contributory negligence.
Conclusion
The Contributory Negligence Act represents a shift from the complete defence at common law to a more equitable framework in which damages are apportioned. The definition of "fault," encompassing negligence, breach of statutory duty, and similar actions, gives a wide scope to the Act. Key cases like Froom v Butcher and Jackson v Murray highlight the importance of both causative potency and blameworthiness when evaluating damages. The Act's application in specific contexts, like the workplace, and regarding children and those who commit self-harm, shows how the courts attempt to balance personal responsibility with the legal obligations of other parties. While the Act has improved fairness, its interpretation and application continue to involve complex considerations. By allowing courts to make proportionate reductions rather than dismissing legitimate claims, it allows for more just and equitable outcomes in civil law.
