Stanton v Collinson

Stanton v Collinson

The judge was entitled to find that the defendant had not discharged the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant's injuries would have been significantly less severe if a seat belt had been worn, given the lack of medical evidence and the uncertainties in the engineering experts' evidence. Therefore, no reduction for contributory negligence was warranted.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Seat Belt Defence, Damages, Causation
Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Seat Belt Defence Damages Causation

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 6 Party arguments 2
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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in declining to reduce damages for contributory negligence due to lack of evidence that a seat belt would have reduced the claimant's injuries
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of engineering experts was sufficient to establish causation for contributory negligence
  3. 3 Whether the court should revisit the principles in Froom v Butcher regarding contributory negligence for not wearing a seat belt

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that the defendant had not discharged the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant's injuries would have been significantly less severe if a seat belt had been worn, given the lack of medical evidence and the uncertainties in the engineering experts' evidence. Therefore, no reduction for contributory negligence was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No reduction in damages for contributory negligence
  • No order for re-trial or further evidence