29:
133:"Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person(s), a claim in respect of that damage will not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage."
150:
was a full defence to negligence. This rule composed what is sometimes called the "unholy trinity" of defences to negligence which wrought particular hardship on 19th century workers, and barred them from any compensation for ghastly workplace injuries (the other two are
161:). It meant that if an employer was 99% at fault for his worker being mangled in his machinery, but the worker was 1% at fault, then the worker could recover nothing in compensation for injuries. Outside the workplace, an example of the defence is found in
211:
In the UK, before the wearing of car seatbelts become obligatory, difficult legal questions arose when a passenger who failed to wear a seatbelt was injured. If the passenger had voluntarily chosen not to wear a seatbelt, was that person
128:
of the United
Kingdom, which allows a judge to apportion liability for compensatory damages as he feels to be "just and equitable" between a tortfeasor and an injured person who was partly to blame. Section 1(1) of the Act provides:
276:
194:
of 1910 had already provided that where two ships collide, blame may be apportioned between the two, so that each's contribution to the accident may be calculated to determine the settlement by way of
269:
199:
249:, and he thereby ensured that the injured passenger could successfully claim against the driver's insurance, albeit that the claim would be only 80% of the loss.
187:
where the claimant conceded that a burning ship accident was unforeseeable in order to avoid the contemporary
Australian contributory negligence bar.
375:
247:"determining whether one is guilty of contributory negligence is a matter not of the cause of the accident, but of the cause of the damage"
390:
202:. Normally blame would be apportioned in simple ratios; 50:50, 60:40, 75:25, etc.) Only rarely would the proportion be 100:0, as in
175:
51:
103:
181:
This harsh common law defence subsisted longer in other countries than in the United
Kingdom. An example is seen in
380:
263:
163:
33:
191:
167:
where a grandmother and an infant that were hit by a negligently driven train were barred from any claim.
385:
370:
96:
214:
157:
147:
46:
An Act to amend the law relating to contributory negligence and for purposes connected therewith.
183:
41:
8:
234:
107:
295:
204:
152:
125:
245:
but rather was 20% contributorily negligent in the matter. Denning MR declared that
346:
1 QB 286; 3 WLR 379; 3 All ER 520; 2 Lloyd's Rep 478; RTR 518; (1975) 119 SJ 613
277:
Singularis
Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited
258:
143:
121:
56:
333:
174:, along with a number of other workplace safety and common law reforms (e.g.,
364:
106:
as in force today (including any amendments) within the United
Kingdom, from
238:
231:
171:
79:
198:. Often, blameworthiness reflected each party's degree of breach of the
226:
defence, the passenger would fail in a claim for negligence. In
195:
190:
This 1945 Act was not based on entirely new principles: the
170:
The Act was passed by the new Labour government following
104:
Text of the Law Reform (Contributory
Negligence) Act 1945
362:
118:Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
22:Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
241:by declaring that such a passenger was NOT
137:
176:Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948
376:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 1945
363:
97:Text of statute as originally enacted
13:
14:
402:
391:Law reform in the United Kingdom
264:Misrepresentation in English law
164:Waite v North-Eastern Railway Co
34:Parliament of the United Kingdom
27:
349:
337:
323:
311:
302:
288:
1:
7:
270:Gran Gelato Ltd v Richcliff
252:
90:Status: Current legislation
10:
407:
299:(1837) 3 Mees & Wels 1
142:Until the Act was passed,
18:United Kingdom legislation
102:
95:
88:
78:
73:
63:
50:
40:
26:
282:
65:Territorial extent
381:United Kingdom tort law
158:volenti non fit injuria
148:contributory negligence
218:to the injury? If so,
184:The Wagon Mound (No 1)
135:
138:Historical background
131:
192:Collision Convention
308:(1858) EB&E 719
23:
108:legislation.gov.uk
21:
386:Law of negligence
296:Priestly v Fowler
153:common employment
126:Act of Parliament
114:
113:
398:
371:English tort law
356:
353:
347:
341:
335:
327:
321:
315:
309:
306:
300:
292:
259:English tort law
144:English tort law
122:8 & 9 Geo. 6
66:
57:8 & 9 Geo. 6
31:
30:
24:
20:
406:
405:
401:
400:
399:
397:
396:
395:
361:
360:
359:
354:
350:
344:Froom V Butcher
342:
338:
328:
324:
316:
312:
307:
303:
293:
289:
285:
255:
228:Froom v Butcher
140:
124:. c. 28) is an
91:
64:
36:
28:
19:
12:
11:
5:
404:
394:
393:
388:
383:
378:
373:
358:
357:
348:
336:
322:
310:
301:
286:
284:
281:
280:
279:
274:
266:
261:
254:
251:
146:had held that
139:
136:
112:
111:
100:
99:
93:
92:
89:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
71:
70:
69:United Kingdom
67:
61:
60:
54:
48:
47:
44:
38:
37:
32:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
403:
392:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
368:
366:
355:Case summary
352:
345:
340:
334:
331:
326:
319:
314:
305:
298:
297:
291:
287:
278:
275:
272:
271:
267:
265:
262:
260:
257:
256:
250:
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:
209:
207:
206:
201:
197:
193:
188:
186:
185:
179:
177:
173:
168:
166:
165:
160:
159:
154:
149:
145:
134:
130:
127:
123:
119:
109:
105:
101:
98:
94:
87:
83:
81:
77:
72:
68:
62:
58:
55:
53:
49:
45:
43:
39:
35:
25:
16:
351:
343:
339:
329:
325:
320:1 All ER 211
317:
313:
304:
294:
290:
268:
246:
242:
239:Gordian knot
232:Lord Denning
227:
223:
219:
213:
210:
203:
189:
182:
180:
172:World War II
169:
162:
156:
141:
132:
117:
115:
84:15 June 1945
80:Royal assent
15:
332:case report
330:The Oropesa
318:The Oropesa
237:sliced the
205:The Oropesa
365:Categories
42:Long title
253:See also
224:complete
222:being a
52:Citation
243:volenti
220:volenti
215:volenti
200:COLREGS
196:damages
59:. c. 28
273:Ch 560
283:Notes
74:Dates
155:and
116:The
178:).
367::
235:MR
230:,
208:.
120:(
110:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.