15% should be deducted where injuries would have been reduced by the wearing of a seatbelt.25% should be deducted where the wearing of a seatbelt would have prevented all injury.The question of what it is just and equitable to deduct should be approached practically and that in the vast majority of cases:. Whenever there is an accident, the negligent driver must bear by far the greater share of responsibility.The obligation to wear a seatbelt is on each individual adult car user and not on the driver to insist.The evidence is clear that everyone should wear a seatbelt (of course, wearing a seatbelt is now mandatory).Although not wearing a seatbelt may not be causative in the accident, it may be causative in the damage.Lord Denning set out a number of principles that are now second nature to regular practitioners in RTA-related Personal Injury claims: Prior to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Froom v Butcher QB 286, judicial opinion was divided on whether contributory negligence should arise where a claimant had failed to wear a seatbelt and, if so, to what extent. This blog aims to set out the underlying principles for quantifying the appropriate deduction to make in either case and to consider the approach to quantification where a passenger is guilty of both. Findings of contributory negligence against passengers who fail to wear a seatbelt and those who voluntarily get into a car with a driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs are commonplace.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |