Jones v Livox Quarries, Ltd.

Facts

Jones worked at a quarry owned by Livox Quarries Ltd. He stood on the rear towbar of a slow-moving vehicle called a Traxcavator, which was being driven on the quarry premises, instead of walking. Riding on the towbar was forbidden by his employers, though the practice was common. Another vehicle driven by a fellow employee came up behind and ran into the Traxcavator, and Jones was injured. He sued the employers on the basis that the driver of the second vehicle had been negligent, for which they were vicariously liable.

History

The trial judge found the employers liable, but reduced the damages by twenty per cent for the claimant's contributory negligence. Jones appealed on the ground that his own conduct had not contributed to the damage.

Issue

Whether the claimant's act of riding on the towbar amounted to contributory negligence in circumstances where the damage was caused by the negligent driving of another vehicle and not by the risk he took of falling off.

Held

Appeal dismissed. The claimant was guilty of contributory negligence and the reduction of twenty per cent was upheld.

Ratio

• A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he fails to take such care for his own safety as a reasonable person would, and the damage must be partly the result of his own fault in the sense that his conduct was a cause of the harm he suffered.
• In judging whether a claimant has been careless, account must be taken of the possibility that others will be careless, and a claimant who exposes himself to a risk that is realised in the damage, even if the immediate cause is another's fault, may have his damages reduced.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• Contributory negligence looks at the claimant's own conduct and whether he failed to look after himself, not at whether he owed a duty to anyone.
• The claimant's act of riding on the towbar contributed to the damage because, but for it, he would not have been where he was when the collision occurred, and the danger of being struck was within the general risk of what he did.
• Where both parties' fault contributes to the damage, the court apportions responsibility by what is just and equitable, and here a modest reduction was appropriate.

Where it fits in the module

In the FHS topic on contributory negligence, Jones v Livox illustrates the relation between fault and causation under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, and the extent to which the claimant's behaviour must be connected to the type of harm that occurred. It is read with Sayers v Harlow UDC [1958] 1 WLR 623, on apportionment, and Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286, on failure to wear a seatbelt, where the court applied a causal approach to the claimant's lack of care. The tutorial question is whether contributory negligence should be assessed by reference to the risk that made the conduct careless or by simple but-for causation.

Criticisms

• The causal test is generous to defendants, because it penalises a claimant for any careless act that placed him where the harm struck, even if the risk that made it careless was a different one.
• The assessment of the percentage reduction is a matter of impression and varies between judges, which makes outcomes unpredictable.
• Judging a worker's conduct against that of a reasonable person ignores the realities of workplace pressure and common practice, though the case treats the common practice as insufficient.
• Applying the contributory negligence reduction against a claimant injured by another's negligent driving can seem to confuse the claimant's fault with that of the wrongdoer.