Stanton v Collinson [2010] EWCA Civ 81 (24 February 2010)

Stanton v Collinson [2010] EWCA Civ 81 (24 February 2010)

The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to find that the defendant had not discharged the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that wearing a seat belt would have sufficiently reduced the claimant's brain injury to justify a reduction for contributory negligence, given the lack of clear and consistent expert evidence and absence of medical evidence on the specific injuries.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 81
Parties
Claimant/respondent: William Thomas Robert Stanton (proceeding by his Father and Litigation Friend Robert Stanton); Defendant/appellant: Lynn Denise Collinson (The Personal Representative of Matthew Collinson, deceased)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (running Down Action/personal Injury) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; original judgment upheld.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Seat Belt Defence, Causation, Expert Evidence, Damages
Personal Injury Tort Law Civil Procedure Contributory Negligence Seat Belt Defence Causation Expert Evidence Damages

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Thomas Robert Stanton (proceeding by his Father and Litigation Friend Robert Stanton)

Claimant/respondent

Lynn Denise Collinson (The Personal Representative of Matthew Collinson, deceased)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (running Down Action/personal Injury) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge was wrong to decline a reduction for contributory negligence due to lack of seat belt use
  2. 2 Whether expert engineering evidence alone sufficed to prove causation of reduced injury by seat belt use
  3. 3 Whether Froom v Butcher should be revisited regarding levels of contributory negligence for seat belt non-use

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to find that the defendant had not discharged the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that wearing a seat belt would have sufficiently reduced the claimant's brain injury to justify a reduction for contributory negligence, given the lack of clear and consistent expert evidence and absence of medical evidence on the specific injuries.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; original judgment upheld.