Seat Belts And Crash Helmets
| Date | 01 May 1974 |
| Published date | 01 May 1974 |
| Author | J. C. Hicks |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1974.tb02384.x |
SEAT BELTS
AND
CRASH HELMETS
THERE are now several reported cases* in which English courts have
considered the defence that a plaintiff’s injuries in a trafic accident
have been needlessly aggravated by his unreasonable failure (in a
car) to use an available seat belt
or
(on a motor cycle) to wear a
crash helmet.
A
defendant seeking to reduce
or
extinguish a claim
on
these
grounds must face three questions: the first of causation, by show-
ing that in that accident the device would have prevented
or
reduced
the plaintiff’s injuries; the second as to the standard of care, by
showing the unreasonableness of the plaintiff’s omission; the third
as
to
the scope of the legal doctrines involved. The first two pose
interesting problems of fact and evidence,’ especially in relation to
seat belts, and have received the attention of writers in the United
States of America but will not be further pursued in
this paper, which is concerned with the legal problems raised in
such situations.
In
Ililder
v,
Associated Portland Cement
Ashworth
J.
summarily
rejected the defence in a crash helmet case under the first and
second of the above heads and in
Geier
v.
Kujawa,
a seat belt
case, Brabin
J.
found that the defendant had failed to make good
his defence under the second head.= In
O’Connell
v.
another crash helmet case, the trial judge’s finding in the defen-
dant’s favour on the first question was not challenged and the Court
of Appeal answered the second in the defendant’s favour, the plain-
tiff having (in effect) conceded the third.l
In none of these cases, therefore, was it necessary to consider in
any depth questions of policy, principle
or
authority. In subsequent
cases at first instance, however, the issue has been dealt with as an
*
Challoner
v,
Williams, The Times,
April 3, 1974
and
Smith
v.
Blackburn,
The
Times,
May
18, 1974, had not been
fully
reported at the date
of
going to press.
They mark
a
possibly significant shift from the earlier cases noted at 4 to
8
below.
1
In
Ceier
v.
Kujawa (infm,
note 6) Ministry
of
Transport statistics
as
to the
prevention or lessening
of
injuries
by
the use
of
seat belts were
looked
at
by
and Canada
ihe judge.
Rev. 288.
-
2
E.g.
Roethe,
”
Seat Belt Negligence in Automobile Accidents,” 1967 Wi8.L.
9
E.g.
Linden,
“
Seat Belts and Contributory Negligence
”
(1971) 49 Can.Bar
4
19611
3
All
E.R.
709, 710.
8
119701
1
Lloyd’s
Rep. 364, 369.
Rev. 476.
6
119721
1
Q.B.
270.
-
7
The terms
of
the concession, as reported, were that
”
if,
a8
a
result
of
his
contributory negligence,
a
plaintiff suffers greater injury than he would othel;;
wise have sustained,
his
entitlement to compensation should reflect that fact
(ibid.,
at p. 276B).
No
case
on
the point was cited
(per
Edmund Davies
L.J.,
zoc.
cit.).
308
To continue reading
Request your trial