Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
Tort: Defences and Remedies
Applying contributory negligence: seat belts, children and emergencies
- 3 things to know
- Components 2 and 3
Overview
The Froom v Butcher tariff of 25 and 15 per cent, the crash helmet variation in Capps v Miller, accepting a lift from a drunk driver in Owens v Brimmell, and the age-adjusted standard for a child.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
What happens where a seat belt would have made no difference?
What did Capps v Miller [1989] decide?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
What reductions did Froom v Butcher [1976] set for failing to wear a seat belt?
Model answer
Froom v Butcher [1976] set a reduction of twenty-five per cent where a belt would have prevented the injury. The reduction is fifteen per cent where a belt would only have made the injury less severe.
- 2
What happens where a seat belt would have made no difference?
Model answer
A claimant loses nothing where wearing a belt would not have affected the injury. The failure must have contributed to the damage before any reduction is made.
- 3
What did Capps v Miller [1989] decide?
Model answer
A motorcyclist wore a crash helmet but failed to fasten the strap, and the helmet came off in a collision. The Court of Appeal reduced his damages by ten per cent.
- 4
What did Owens v Brimmell [1977] decide?
Model answer
A passenger spent an evening drinking with the driver and then accepted a lift home. The court reduced his damages by twenty per cent for contributory negligence.
- 5
How is a child's contributory negligence assessed?
Model answer
A child is judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the same age. A very young child is treated as incapable of contributory negligence at all.
- 6
What were the facts of Gough v Thorne [1966]?
Model answer
A thirteen-year-old crossed the road when a lorry driver signalled to her and was hit by a speeding car. The Court of Appeal found no contributory negligence, because she behaved as a child of that age would.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Tort: Defences and Remedies, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.