0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Jones v Wilkins, Court of Appeal

8 February 2001
The issues

A Road Traffic Accident. Injuries To Child Passenger – Apportionment.

The facts

The Claimant was aged 2 years and 9 months at the time of the accident. She was carried in the front passenger seat of the car seated on her mother’s knee. The car was driven by the mother’s sister. The mother had a diagonal belt across her shoulders and chest but not across the Claimant’s body. The lap belt was around both mother and child. The Defendant driving in the opposite direction drove onto the wrong side of the road in a head on collision. The Claimant sustained terrible injuries – paraplegia.

At first instance the Judge apportioned blame 75% to the Defendant and 25% to the Third parties, the child’s mother and Aunt following Frome v Butcher. On appeal.

The decision

Frome v Butcher was a decision under Section 1 of the law reform (contributory negligence) Act 1945 and was not concerned with contribution as between joint tort feasers. However, the language of the law reform Act and of the Civil Liability Contribution) Act 1978 was strikingly similar. Frome v Butcher therefore provided valuable guidance in cases falling under the 1978 Act. 25% was not an absolute “and immutable ceiling in every case”. It was for guidance only. The Judge had followed Frome in this light. This was not withstanding his finding that the terrible injuries to the child would have been entirely or virtually avoided had she been wearing an approved restraint. The Judge was entitled to bear in mind the fact that the Defendant had caused the accident by his gross inattention. He had been entitled to bear in mind that the mother had put the lap part of the belt around the child (notwithstanding that this actually made the situation worse). The 75/25% apportionment was a distribution he was entitled to arrive at.

Comments

Interestingly, Michael and I found in Bingham only one case quoted where 25% had been exceeded. The real point of this case may i.e. in the Court of Appeal’s wish to ensure that an insurer stood behind a tort feaser. The report hints at another justification – blame and in this regard has some similarities with Rahman reported on earlier and then that case was a case on causation and involved two successive tort feasers. The Court of Appeal had to decide on questions of apportionment. Laws J reconciled Jobling v Baker on the basis that concepts of blame had a role in apportioning damages. Per Law LJ “blame may be material to the application or dis-application in any particular case of our ideas of novis actus and egg shell skulls”.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up