Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286 (CA)

Facts

• The case concerned a road traffic accident in which the claimant, Froom, suffered both head and chest injuries, as well as a broken finger.
• The accident was primarily caused by the defendant Butcher’s negligent driving.
• Froom was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision.
• Evidence indicated that some of the claimant's injuries (head and chest) could have been prevented by wearing a seat belt, while others (the broken finger) would have occurred regardless of seat belt use.
• The court addressed the extent to which the claimant's failure to wear a seat belt should affect the damages recoverable.

Issues

1. Whether a claimant’s failure to wear a seat belt constitutes contributory negligence in a road traffic accident.
2. How the concept of causation should be applied, distinguishing between the cause of the accident and the cause of the damage.
3. On what basis damages should be apportioned when both parties’ actions contribute to the harm suffered.

Decision

• The court held that failure to wear a seat belt can amount to contributory negligence, even if it did not cause the accident, because it contributes to the extent of injuries sustained.
• The inquiry should focus on what caused the damage, not the accident itself; seat belt usage is relevant to the mitigation of harm.
• Damages were to be reduced according to the causative potency of each party’s negligence, not according to moral blameworthiness.
• The court provided practical guidelines: no reduction if injuries would have occurred regardless of seat belt use; a 25% reduction if injuries would have been prevented by a seat belt; and a 15% reduction for less severe preventable injuries.
• In the actual case, the court reduced damages by 25% for injuries preventable by a seat belt, and made no reduction for the injuries that would still have occurred.

Legal Principles

• Contributory negligence is established if the claimant failed to take reasonable care for their own safety, and this failure contributed to the damage.
• The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 allows for damages to be reduced based on the claimant’s share of responsibility for the harm.
• The standard applied is that of the ‘reasonable person’; foreseeability is assessed objectively.
• The critical distinction is between causation of the accident and causation of damage, with the latter being the focus for apportionment.
• Damages are apportioned according to the causative contribution to the harm, not the parties’ degree of blameworthiness.

Conclusion

Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286 established that a claimant’s failure to wear a seat belt constitutes contributory negligence and that any resulting reduction in damages should be based on the actual contribution of that failure to the injuries suffered, shifting the focus in apportionment from blameworthiness to causative potency under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. This decision remains a foundational authority on damage reduction in negligence claims involving road accidents.