Pearson v Anwar [2015] EWCA Civ 1011 (22 July 2015)
The injury (tetraplegia) would have been prevented altogether had the Claimant worn a seat belt; the notional whiplash injury is de minimis compared to the actual injury; the case falls within the second category of Froom v Butcher, justifying a 25% reduction for contributory negligence.
- Citation
- [2015] EWCA Civ 1011
- Parties
- Claimant: Pearson; Defendant: Anwar
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 22 July 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (oral Hearing)
- Outcome
- Application for permission to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Contributory Negligence, Seat Belt Defence, Damages Reduction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pearson
Claimant
Anwar
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (oral Hearing)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the reduction of damages by 25% for contributory negligence due to failure to wear a seat belt was correct
- 2 Whether the notional whiplash injury should affect the categorisation under Froom v Butcher
- 3 Whether the relative blameworthiness of the parties justified a different reduction
Ratio Decidendi
The injury (tetraplegia) would have been prevented altogether had the Claimant worn a seat belt; the notional whiplash injury is de minimis compared to the actual injury; the case falls within the second category of Froom v Butcher, justifying a 25% reduction for contributory negligence.
Court Disposition
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused
- No change to the 25% reduction for contributory negligence
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment