"It's hard to quantify, right now. But at a guess, I'd say it's probably more than 50% faster, at times. It's literally that quick. We've found to be an essential practical tool. We're very satisfied."
Walsall Council
Access all documents on Contributory negligence
A partial defence to a claim based upon the negligence of a claimant.
Damages awarded to a Claimant may be reduced by a proportion equivalent to that which his own actions contributed to the injury suffered. The burden is on the Defendant to prove the negligence of the Claimant.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
Checklist—road traffic accident defences Defence Principle Further reading Contributory negligence Where the defendant is primarily responsible for the accident, they may allege the other party was guilty of contributing to the accident. The issues to consider are:—which parties were at fault in the accident?—in what proportion should the damages be apportioned having regard to the respective responsibilities of those at fault? Practice Note: Contributory negligence in personal injury claims Contributory negligence for failure to wear a seat belt As a general principle:25% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would have prevented the injuries sustained15% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would have made a considerable difference to the injuries sustained0% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would not have made any difference to the injuries sustained Practice Note: Defences in road traffic accidents Contributory negligence for failure to wear a motorcycle crash helmet Leading case law has suggested:15% deduction to damages—if wearing a helmet would have resulted in less severe injuries10% deduction to damages—where the claimant...
Discover our 1 Flowcharts on Contributory negligence
Contributory negligence is a partial defence which can lead to a discount in damages.Other defences may also be relevant. See Practice Notes: Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury? and Was the claimant involved in an illegal activity?If a defendant wishes to pursue an allegation of contributory negligence they must allege, plead and prove that the claimant contributed to their injury by failing to take all reasonable care for their own safety.Section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 (LR(CN)A 1945) provides:‘Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall 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.’Courts express a finding of contributory negligence as a percentage or...
NOTE: Major changes to the Highway Code came into force on 29 January 2022. The concept of a 'hierarchy of road users' was introduced to give vulnerable road users a greater degree of clarity over who has right of way at junctions. For further details, see The Highway Code and The Highway Code—8 key changes from 29th January 2022.For a claimant to succeed in a claim for personal injury, they must first establish that a common law duty of care was owed to them by the defendant and that the defendant was in breach of that duty. Further, that their injuries were caused by that breach of duty. For further guidance, see: Proving negligence or breach of statutory duty—overview.The issue of contribution on the part of the claimant may then arise. For the claimant also has a duty of care to protect themselves from harm and their actions may be in breach of that duty. The court will consider whether the claimant is contributorily negligent for their injuries such that...
Discover our 60 Practice Notes on Contributory negligence
Defence of a highway authority against a claim for flooding [ In the High Court of Justice OR In the County Court at [insert] ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [ [Insert location] District Registry ] Claim No: [insert claim number] Between [A B]        Claimants and [X Y]        Defendants Defence 1 Paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. 2 The Defendants are unable to admit or to deny and therefore require the Claimant to prove the facts and matters alleged in paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim. 3 Negligence, breach of statutory duty and causation as alleged in paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim, or at all, are each denied. 4 It is denied that the Defendants were guilty of nuisance as alleged under paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim or at all. 5 If, which is not admitted, the Claimant’s car skidded in a flood which had formed on the road, the Defendants will contend that at all...
Defence alleging contributory negligence in occupier's liability claim [ In the High Court of Justice OR In the COUNTY COURT AT [insert] ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [ [Insert location] District Registry ] Claim No: Between [A B]        Claimant and [X Y]        Defendants ________________________________________________ Defence ________________________________________________ 1 For the purposes of this action only, it is admitted that the Claimant’s fall while using a stile was caused by the Defendant’s negligence and/or breach of statutory duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. 2 It is admitted that the Claimant sustained some injury as a result of the accident but the Defendant is unable to admit the extent of that injury for lack of knowledge. 3 It is the Defendant’s case that the Claimant’s accident was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Claimant. The Claimant was negligent in that [he OR she]: PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE 3.1 failed to consider or chose to ignore that the stile was ‘poorly...
Dive into our 4 Precedents related to Contributory negligence
What is the relevant case law on contributory negligence where a claimant has seriously injured his hand trying to remove an object from an unguarded roller machine? Does a HSE prosecution against the defendant for failure to provide a machine guard and a cut-off switch impact on an allegation of contributory negligence against the claimant? Before April 2013, all cases of this sort were covered by the ‘six-pack’ workplace regulations issued by the Secretary of State under section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974)—they were thus cases about breach of statutory duties, usually ones imposing strict liability. Since an assessment of contributory negligence involves consideration of causative potency and blameworthiness (the latter being more important; Stapley v Gypsum Mines), it follows that breaches of strict and clearly defined duties by an employer will almost always outweigh the contribution of the employee. This was the primary reason why, commenting on contributory negligence in such cases, Buxton LJ stated in...
Can you direct me to any relevant guidance or case law on contributory negligence where a cyclist crosses a zebra crossing without checking the road was clear? The following rules of The Highway Code may be relevant. According to Rule 195, as a motorist approaches a zebra crossing they must look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop. Furthermore, a motorist must give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing. Rule 19 provides guidance to pedestrians using zebra crossings. Rule 79 of the Highway Code advises cyclists not to ride across a zebra crossing but to dismount and wheel the bicycle across. As the Highway Code makes clear, pedestrians should use zebra crossings where available, but that does not give them an absolute right to step into the road. Generally, where a car strikes a pedestrian on a zebra crossing, it is very unlikely that the driver will be able to avoid liability, but, on the facts, the...
See the 26 Q&As about Contributory negligence
This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes news of interest rate reductions for Court Funds Office accounts effective 30 May 2025 following a decrease in the Bank of England’s base rate, and a new guide for the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) introducing mandatory electronic filing and streamlined procedures for civil appeals. We consider a High Court decision where a teenage passenger’s claim for brain damage from a motorbike accident was reduced by 20% for contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet and accepting a ride from an inexperienced rider. We also bring you a workplace COVID-19 appeal that was allowed due to errors in applying the causation test during summary judgment, and a claim involving occupational injury from acoustic shock that was dismissed after the required diagnostic criteria were not met. In addition, we have our usual round-up of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest and we have included a free webinar.
PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: His Honour Judge Tindal allowed a claim by a 15-year-old passenger of a stolen motorbike for brain damage sustained when the bike crashed after skipping a red light. The insurer of the motorbike raised several defences including illegality, knowledge that the bike was stolen per section 151(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), and an exclusion clause in its policy concerning pillion passengers. Contributory negligence was also raised. The judge rejected the defences and the exclusion clause, but allowed contributory negligence at 20% for failure to wear a helmet and accepting a ride from the obviously inexperienced 16-year-old rider. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.
Read the latest 59 News articles on Contributory negligence
**Trials are provided to all ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234