The Gazette 1979

JULY AUGUST 1979

GAZETTE

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. 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. (10) as in O'Connell v. Jackson, 119721 1 QB 270. (11) In Eroom v. Butcher, damages were reduced 2 0%,

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. 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 (3) Sills v. Brown (1840) 2 C i P 601, 6 05 (NP) Wallers v. Plcil I 1829| Mood < M 362. 365

Deposit Receipts with

BNP

BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS (Ireland) LTD. HI Gtafton Street, Dublin 2

Deposit Receipt

£

i from.

TEL 01-712811

l 23