Roger Harris assesses cases involving contributory negligence & diagnostic failure
Since the decision of the Court of Appeal in Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286, [1975] 3 All ER 520 the maximum reduction likely to be awarded for failure to wear a seat belt is 25%. And since Owens v Brimmell [1977] QB 859, 3 All ER 765 the figure of 20% is commonly regarded as the appropriate reduction for a claimant who has got into a vehicle when he must have known that the driver had had too much to drink.
In Best v Smyth [2010] EWHC 1541 (QB), [2010] All ER (D) 210 (Jun) the court had to consider (in the context of an application for an interim payment) whether a claimant who got into a vehicle with a man he must have known to be drunk and then subsequently failed to wear a seat belt might have his damages reduced by as much as 50% for contributory negligence.
Tugenhdart J concluded that there was no support in any authority for a reduction of the order contended for by the defendant.
