| Seat Belts and The Law |
|
|
|
 You may, or may not have known, that should you fail to wear a seat belt ina vehicle, when provided, the Courts will normally deduct 25% of the compensation you are entitled to receive for any injuries suffered. In the case of Michael Gawler v Paul Raettig, however, the solicitors for the Defendant were granted leave to issue a 'leapfrog' appeal, straight to the House of Lords, that the damages to the Claimant should be reduced by 50% because he had not been wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident in December 2004. Mr Gawler had been a front seat passenger in a vehicle driven by Paul Raettig when the Defendant lost control of the vehicle and left the road. Mr Gawler sustained a serious spinal injury resulting in paralysis for which £2.7 million damages were agreed between the parties. Those representing Mr Gawler, successfully argued at the original trial in February 2007 that the damages awarded ought reasonably be reduced by 25% for his failure to wear a seat-belt, as directed in the previous case of Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286. The Defendant argued again for a reduction of 50% in damages, however, and the House of Lords upheld the original decision of 25%. The failure of this test-case by the Defendants thus maintains the ruling in Froom v Butcher and follows the directions given in many other jurisdictions that recognise that the majority of blame must lie with the driver whose negligent driving caused the accident in the first place. |
