Seat Belt in UK Law

Both parties in this appeal urged upon us, in different contexts, the undesirability of a prolonged or intensive enquiry in these cases. They were right to do so; there is a powerful public interest in there being no such enquiry into fine degrees of contributory negligence, so that the vast majority of cases can be settled according to a well-understood formula and those few which entail trial do not mushroom out of control.

In these seat belt cases, the injured plaintiff is in no way to blame for the accident itself. Sometimes he is an innocent passenger sitting beside a negligent driver who goes off the road. At other times he is an innocent driver of one car which is run into by the bad driving of another car which pulls out on to its wrong side of the road. It may well be asked: Why should the injured plaintiff have his damages reduced? The accident was solely caused by the negligent driving by the defendant.

But in seat beltcases the cause of the accident is one thing. The damage is caused in part by the bad driving of the defendant, and in part by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. If the plaintiff was to blame in not wearing a scat belt, the damage is in part the result of his own fault. He must bear some shire in the responsibility for the damage: and his damages fall to be reduced to such extent as the Court thinks just and equitable.

Whenever there is an accident, the negligent driver must bear by far the greater share of responsibility. But insofar as the damage might have been avoided or lessened by wearing a seat belt, the injured person must bear some share. This question should not be prolonged by an expensive inquiry into the degree of blameworthiness on either side, which would be hotly disputed. Suffice it to assess a share of responsibility which will be just and equitable in the great majority of cases.

At other times the evidence will show that the failure made all the difference. The damage would have been prevented altogether if a seat belt had been worn. In such cases I would suggest that the damages should be reduced by 25%.

But often enough the evidence will only show that the failure made a considerable difference. Some injuries to the head, for instance, would have been a good deal less severe if a seat belt had still been worn, but there would still have been some injury to the head. In such case I would suggest that the damages attributable to the failure to wear a seat belt should be reduccd by 15%.

Everyone knows, or ought to know, that when he goes out in a car he should fasten the seat belt. It is so well known that it goes without saying, not only for the driver, but also the passenger. Under the Highway Code a driver may have a duty to invite his passenger to fasten his seat belt: but adult passengers possessed of their faculties should not need telling what to do.