121 / 244
GAZETTE
JULY AUGUST 1979
What excusing circumstances exist? The Supreme
Court referred to a number of situations where persons
could not be expected to wear seat belts. Firstly where the
ear was not fitted with them, secondly "in cases of
obesity, pregnancy and post operative convalescence the
wearing of seat belts may be thought to do more harm
llian good",
12
in
Froom v. Butcher,
the Court of Appeal
were dealing with a plaintiff who claimed that he did not
wear a seat belt because he believed that it was more
dangerous to wear a seat belt because in an accident he
might be trapped in the car. He submitted that it would be
a gross invasion of his freedom of choice and that the
court would be justified in holding that a decision to act
on an opinion firmly and honestly held by many other
people was contributory negligence. The trial judge, Nield
J., accepted this but the Court of Appeal did not. Lord
Denning, M.R., stated "the law [of negligence] eliminates
the personal equation, it takes no notice of the views of
the particular individual". He added that the law could
not admit forgetfulness as an excuse either.
There are clearly strong policy reasons for this.
Between 1972 and 1974 the British government spent
£2L million on advertisements advising people to
wear seat belts. The Supreme Court also referred to the
Irish government's advertising campaign with signs all
over the country saying "Live with a safety belt". It is
clearly government policy to encourage drivers and
passengers to wear scat belts. The Road Traffic
(Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles)
(Amendment) Regulations 1971 (S.I. no. 96 of 1971)
makes it obligatory to fit safety belts and anchorage
points in cars for use by the driver and front seat
passenger farthest out from him. "When the Oireachtas
made it compulsory to fit seat belts to a motor car it must
have been intended that they should be worn although the
wearing of seat belts was not made compolsory" (per
Griffin J. in
Hamilt).
Subsequent to
Hamill
and since
earlier this year the wearing of seat belts and crash-
helmets is compulsory (with certain exceptions) on pain of
Criminal
Sanctions.
11
It is hoped that the decision, if not exactly deterrent
wilue. will encourage their use and "help to educate the
public to their effectiveness".
14
Elsewhere the judicial
feeling appears to be in accord. In two Canadian
decisions failure to use a seat belt was held to be
contributory negligence.
15
(1) Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ltd., 119511 A C
r>() 1 .
<2) .1. C. 1 licks. Seal Belts and Crash Helmets. 1974. 37 MLR 308.
(3) Sills v. Brown (1840) 2 C i P 601, 6 05 (NP)
Wallers v. Plcil I 1829| Mood < M 362. 365
Greenland v. Chaplain I 18501 Ex 25 3 where Pollock CB said
"I entirely concur with the rest of the ( ourt. that a person
who is guilty of negligcncc and thereby produces injury to
another, lias no right to say. 'Pari of that mischief would not
have arisen if you yourself had not been guilty of some
negligence". I think that where the negligence of the party
injured did not in any degree contribute to the immediate
cause of the accident, such negligence ought not to be set up
as an answer to the action . . ."
" I O'llieeins. I .. Hcnchy and GrilTin JJ.
(5) | 19761 QB 286
"<> l o r d Denning MR: Lawton and Scarman LJJ.
<
7
) In ToperalT v. Mor I 19731 R TR 419,
Pasternak v. Poulton I 19731 1 WLR 476,
Parnell v. Shields I 19731 RTR 414,
Met lee v. f r a n c os Shaw and Co. Ltd.. 197 3, R TR 409.
failure In wear a seal bell was held lo amount to contributory
nceliecncc. But not m
Geier v. K u j a w a, 11970] 1 L LR 364,
Challoner V. Williams 11974) R T R 221,
Smith v. Blackburn, 119741 R T R 537.
(8) M. A. Millner. Negligence in Modern Law. (Butterworths 1970)
p. 28.
(9) The Margaret, (1881) 6 P.D. 76.
(10) as in O'Connell
v.
Jackson, 119721 1
QB
270.
(11) In Eroom v. Butcher, damages were reduced 2 0%,
In ToperaofT v. Mor, damages were reduced 2 5%,
In Pasternak v. Poullon, damages were reduced 5%,
In Parncll v. Shields, damages were reduced 2 0%,
In Mc G ec v. Frances Shaw, damages were reduced 3 3 | % .
( I 2) Could it not be held to amount to contributory negligence for
people in that condition to travel in the front of a 4-door car?
13. Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles)
(Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1978. S.I. No. 3 60 of 1978.
(14) Linden: "Seat Belts and Contributory Negligence" (1971) 49
Can. Bar Rev. 475, 483.
(15) Yvan v. Farstad (1967) 66 D L R (2nd) 295, Jackson v. Miller
(1971) 25 D L R (3d) 261.
Council of Europe
Study Visits Abroad
Full particulars and application forms for assistance
towards organising or financing study visits in
accordance with the Council of Europe Scheme to
promote study visits by lawyers from the member states
of the Council are now available from the Secretariat of
the Department of Justice.
Completed forms should reach the Department by
30th September, 1979.
BNP
Deposit
Receipts
with
BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS (Ireland) LTD.
HI Gtafton Street, Dublin 2
i from.
Deposit Receipt
£
TEL 01-712811
l 23