Owens v Brimmell
[1977] QB 859; [1977] 2 WLR 943;
[1976] 3 All ER 765; [1977] RTR 82;
NEGLIGENCE, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, DRINK DRIVING,
ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, FAILURE TO WEAR A SEATBELT, FORESEEABILITY
Facts
The plaintiff and the defendant were friends and the defendant often gave a lift to the plaintiff. One night, they bought went out with the car, visited several public houses and finally, a club. The defendant estimated that they had both drunk 8 to 9 pints of beer. At 2 am, the defendant was driving the plaintiff home, lost control of the car and crashed into a lamp post. The plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt. He received a heavy blow on the face either from hitting the lamp post when he was partially thrown from the car, or from facia board of the car while sitting the passenger seat. The plaintiff suffered very serious injuries, including intellect impairment. The defendant admitted that he was guilty of negligence in the plaintiff’s action for damages, but alleged that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence for his failure to wear a seat belt and recklessness as to the possibility that the defendant’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.
Issues
(1) Is the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence for his failure to wear a seat belt?
(2) Is the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence for his failure to foresee the possibility that the driver’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.
Decision/Outcome
(1) Applying Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286, the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence for his failure to wear a seat belt as the defendant did not prove that the plaintiff’s injuries would have been less serious had he worn a seat belt.
(2) The plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence for his failure to foresee the possibility that the driver’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol as a person is guilty of contributory negligence if he knew that the driver had consumed so much alcohol as to impair his ability to drive safely or knowing that he would be given a lift in the car, he accompanied the driver on a bout of drinking.
Therefore, the amount of damages was reduced by 20 per cent.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Owens v Brimmell [1977] QB 859 is still good law and continues to be cited as the leading authority establishing that a passenger may be found contributorily negligent for accepting a lift from a driver known to be, or foreseeably likely to be, impaired by alcohol. The principle that contributory negligence may also arise where a passenger accompanies a driver on a bout of drinking, knowing a lift will follow, remains settled law.
The summary correctly applies Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286 on the seat belt issue. Note, however, that the legal landscape around seat belts has evolved since 1977: the wearing of seat belts became compulsory for front seat passengers under the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982, extended to rear seat passengers in 1991. In cases decided after those Regulations came into force, courts have generally been more ready to find contributory negligence for failure to wear a seat belt. This does not affect the correctness of the outcome in Owens v Brimmell itself, which was decided before compulsion existed, but students should be aware that the seat belt analysis would likely differ if the same facts arose today.
The contributory negligence framework continues to be governed by the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, which remains in force without material amendment relevant to this area.
