Pearson v Anwar

Pearson v Anwar

The failure to wear a seat belt made all the difference to the injury sustained; the catastrophic injury would have been prevented altogether had a seat belt been worn. The judge was correct to apply a 25% reduction in damages for contributory negligence under the second category of Froom v Butcher.

Parties
Claimant: Pearson; Defendant: Anwar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Damages, Seat Belt Defence
Tort Law Personal Injury Contributory Negligence Damages Seat Belt Defence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pearson

Claimant

Anwar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reduction of damages by 25% for contributory negligence due to failure to wear a seat belt was appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the case should fall within the second or third category of Froom v Butcher
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider the relative blameworthiness of the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The failure to wear a seat belt made all the difference to the injury sustained; the catastrophic injury would have been prevented altogether had a seat belt been worn. The judge was correct to apply a 25% reduction in damages for contributory negligence under the second category of Froom v Butcher.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed