Our offices are open as usual over the Easter break

O’Connell v Jackson

326 words (1 pages) Case Summary in Cases

12/10/18 Cases Reference this

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.

O’Connell v Jackson

[1971] 3 WLR 463; [1972] 1 QB 270; [1971] 3 All ER 129;

[1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep 354; [1972] RTR 51; (1971) 115 SJ 742;

NEGLIGENCE, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MOTORISTS, HELMET, FORESEEABILTIY, INJURIES

Facts

The plaintiff was an experienced motorist, travelling to work at 20 mph on a major road in a busy traffic area. Contrary to the Highway Code, the plaintiff was not wearing a helmet. The defendant was emerging from a minor road and stopped at the junction with the major road but then negligently moved forwards, causing the plaintiff to collide with it. As a result, the plaintiff sustained severe head injuries. At the trial of the plaintiff’s action for damages, the defendant admitted that he was guilty of negligence. It was held that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence because although wearing a helmet would have reduced the gravity of his injuries, his conduct was not unreasonable. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issue

Does a motorist’s failure to wear a helmet amount to contributory negligence in case of an accident?

Held

The appeal was allowed.

(1) Applying Jones v Livox Quarries [1952] 2 QB 608, the plaintiff should have foreseen the possibility of being involved in an accident even though he was driving with care and at a reasonable speed.

(2) Although the defendant is solely responsible for the accident, the plaintiff’s negligence is relevant to the gravity of the injuries and damage sustained as injuries of such gravity would not have occurred, had he worn a helmet.

Therefore, the plaintiff must bear some of the responsibility for the consequences of the accident and the amount of damages is to be reduced by 15 per cent.

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.

Ready to get started?