Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286

Facts

  • Mr. Froom, the claimant, was involved in a road traffic accident while driving a vehicle.
  • The defendant, Mr. Butcher, was found liable for the accident due to negligent driving.
  • Mr. Froom was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident.
  • Medical evidence indicated that Mr. Froom’s injuries would have been less severe had he been wearing a seatbelt.
  • The court considered the impact of Mr. Froom's failure to wear a seatbelt when assessing damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant’s failure to wear a seatbelt amounted to contributory negligence.
  2. Whether damages should be reduced and, if so, by what proportion, due to the claimant’s failure to wear a seatbelt.
  3. What legal framework should be applied in determining contributory negligence in seatbelt-related cases.

Decision

  • The court held that Mr. Froom’s failure to wear a seatbelt amounted to contributory negligence.
  • Damages awarded to Mr. Froom were reduced by 25% to reflect his share of responsibility for the injuries suffered.
  • The court established guidelines distinguishing between cases where failure to wear a seatbelt caused, exacerbated, or made no difference to the injury.
  • In cases where the failure to wear a seatbelt contributed to injury, a typical reduction in damages would be 25%.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of contributory negligence, under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, permits courts to apportion liability according to each party's degree of fault.
  • Failure to wear a seatbelt is considered a failure to take reasonable precautions for one’s own safety and may amount to contributory negligence.
  • Damages should be reduced only where medical evidence demonstrates that seatbelt usage would have mitigated or avoided the injury.
  • The court provides a framework: damages are reduced by 25% if the injury would have been prevented or less severe by seatbelt use, but no reduction if seatbelt use would have made no difference.

Conclusion

Froom v Butcher established that a claimant’s failure to wear a seatbelt amounts to contributory negligence, allowing for proportional reductions in damages where such failure increases injury; the decision clarified a practical guideline for courts in seatbelt-related personal injury claims, emphasizing the duty to take reasonable precautions to mitigate harm.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal