Froom v Butcher [1976] Q.B. 286

On 19th November 1972, C was driving home with his wife beside him and his daughter behind. Neither C nor his wife was wearing seat belts. C was going carefully on his near side of the road at his normal speed of 30 to 35 miles an hour. D tried to overtake a line of traffic coming in the opposite direction to C. Going too fast to stop, D struck C’s car head-on. D was later convicted of careless driving. C, his wife, and daughter were all injured. C was forced up against the steering column, breaking a rib and bruising his chest. C would probably have been saved from these injuries if he had worn a seatbelt. C also had a broken finger, but the seat belt would not have saved that. C’s injuries were minor enough for him to return to work the next day.

Should the claimant’s damages be reduced for not wearing an available seat belt where that omission caused or increased his injuries, although he had not caused the collision?

Finding for D, that the prudent man should guard against the possibility of negligence by others by wearing a seat belt. The chances of injury are four times as great when a seat belt is not worn. In determining whether contributory negligence is made out the proper question is not what/who caused the accident, but what was the cause of the damage. Where injuries would have been altogether prevented by the wearing of a seat belt, damages should be reduced by 25%. Where injuries would have been ‘a good deal less severe’ the reduction should be 15%. Contributory negligence is a man’s carelessness in looking after his own safety. He is guilty if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act with reasonable prudence, he might suffer injury. It shows quite plainly that everyone in the front seats of a car should wear a seat belt for every journey regardless of circumstances. In determining responsibility, the law takes no notice of the views of the individual. It requires everyone to exercise all such precautions as a man of ordinary prudence would observe.

Failure to wear an available seat belt may amount to contributory negligence where it causes or worsens the injuries. The relevant connection is with the damage, not responsibility for the collision. Froom gave guideline reductions of 25% for preventable injuries and 15% for substantially reduced severity.

Froom illustrates how a person can contribute to injury without causing the accident. Its guidance depends on medical and factual evidence about what a seat belt would have prevented. No reduction is justified on this basis where wearing one would have made no difference. The percentages should be explained as the court's guidance for the identified situations, rather than applied mechanically whenever a claimant was unbelted, regardless of the injuries claimed.