Defences — SQE1 Tort question
A worked single-best-answer question on defences, with why each wrong option is wrong — the way SQE1 traps candidates.
Imran was a front-seat passenger in a car driven by his friend. The car was hit by a lorry whose driver negligently went through a red light. Imran was not wearing a seat belt. Medical evidence shows that wearing a seat belt would not have prevented his injuries altogether but would have made them considerably less severe. The lorry driver's insurers accept liability for the collision.
Which of the following best describes the likely effect of Imran's failure to wear a seat belt?
- AHis damages will be reduced by 25%, because he failed to wear a seat belt.
- BHis claim will fail, because contributory negligence is a complete defence.
- CHis claim will fail, because by not wearing a seat belt he voluntarily accepted the risk of injury.
- DHis damages will not be reduced, because his failure to wear a seat belt did not cause the collision.
- EHis damages are likely to be reduced by about 15%, because a seat belt would have made his injuries less severe.
Show answer and reasoning
Rule: Failure to wear a seat belt normally reduces damages by 25% if it would have prevented the injury, or 15% if it would have made it considerably less severe.
- A A 25% reduction is the guideline where a seat belt would have prevented the injuries entirely, which is not the case here. (right rule, wrong facts)
- B Since 1945 contributory negligence apportions damages rather than defeating the claim. (wrong rule)
- C Not wearing a seat belt is not consent to the risk of another's negligence, and volenti is in any event excluded for passengers by statute. (wrong rule)
- D The relevant question is whether the claimant's fault contributed to the damage, not to the accident. (wrong rule)
Source: Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s 1(1); Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286