O'Connell v Jackson [1971] EWCA Civ 5 (07 July 1971)

O'Connell v Jackson [1971] EWCA Civ 5 (07 July 1971)

A plaintiff who fails to wear a crash helmet, knowing the risks and the general advice to do so, is guilty of contributory negligence if this omission increases the severity of injuries sustained in an accident, even if the omission did not contribute to the occurrence of the accident. Damages should be reduced to reflect the plaintiff's share of responsibility for the additional injuries.

Citation
[1971] EWCA Civ 5
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Charles O'Connell; Defendant (appellant): Thomas Jackson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs. Order below varied.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Damages, Road Traffic Accidents
Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Damages Road Traffic Accidents

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles O'Connell

Plaintiff (respondent)

Thomas Jackson

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to wear a crash helmet constitutes contributory negligence in a road traffic accident where the plaintiff's conduct did not contribute to the occurrence of the accident but may have contributed to the extent of injuries.
  2. 2 Whether damages should be reduced due to contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet.

Ratio Decidendi

A plaintiff who fails to wear a crash helmet, knowing the risks and the general advice to do so, is guilty of contributory negligence if this omission increases the severity of injuries sustained in an accident, even if the omission did not contribute to the occurrence of the accident. Damages should be reduced to reflect the plaintiff's share of responsibility for the additional injuries.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs. Order below varied.

Orders

  • Damages awarded to the plaintiff reduced by 15% to reflect contributory negligence.
  • Each figure in the original order to be reduced by 15%.