levo

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.

Your recallNot started
Numbers

What reductions did Froom v Butcher [1976] set for failing to wear a seat belt?

Key term

What happens where a seat belt would have made no difference?

Key term

What did Capps v Miller [1989] decide?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

See a huge jump in your memorisation

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz consolidates the facts

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It trains answer structure

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

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.