“Failure to wear seatbelt constitutes contributory negligence reducing damages by 15-25%.”
The plaintiff was injured in a car accident caused by the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. Medical evidence showed that wearing a seatbelt would have prevented or reduced the severity of the injuries sustained.
Whether the failure to wear a seatbelt when available constitutes contributory negligence, and if so, by what percentage damages should be reduced under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
The Court of Appeal held that failure to wear an available seatbelt constitutes contributory negligence. The court established guidelines: 25% reduction where seatbelt would have prevented injury entirely, 15% where it would have reduced injury significantly.
This case established the modern approach to contributory negligence in road traffic cases and created widely-applied guidelines for damages reduction. It demonstrates the practical application of the 1945 Act and remains highly relevant for personal injury law and insurance practice.
You're reading the free summary of Froom v Butcher. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.