Froom and Others v Butcher [1976] QB 286

Court of Appeal 

Basic Facts: 
The claimant (C) was injured in a car accident caused by the defendant's (D) negligent driving. C was not wearing a seatbelt and sustained head and chest injuries, which would have been avoided if he had been wearing a seatbelt. 

Issue for the Court: 
Should the court consider the cause of the accident or the cause of the damage when determining contributory negligence? 

Held: Damages were to be reduced by 20% overall for contributory negligence

Lord Denning (Allowing the Appeal by D, Damages Reduced by 20%): 

• Contributory negligence does not require a breach of duty; it only requires carelessness by C in relation to another's breach. 

• C is guilty of contributory negligence if he should have reasonably foreseen that his actions might cause harm to himself. 

• The cause of the accident itself is not the focus; rather, the cause of the damage is key. 

• Where both D and C contribute to the damage, C’s damages should be reduced accordingly, even if C’s actions didn’t cause the accident itself.