Contributory negligence meaning

This Checklist outlines the current position under the Pre-Action Protocol for professional negligence claims (the 'Protocol'). For general guidance on the Protocol, refer to Practice Note: Professional negligence claims—the pre-action protocol. Read this Checklist alongside Practice Note: Professional negligence claims—pre-action protocol—defendant issues. For assistance with starting a professional negligence claim, with a worked hypothetical set of pleadings and a template precedent particulars of claim, which may help a defendant anticipate what they might face, see: Practice Note: Starting a professional negligence claim—a practical guide Practice Note: Pleading professional negligence claims—worked hypothetical examples Precedent: Particulars of claim—professional negligence claim Professional receiving preliminary notice (professional negligence PAP) You must acknowledge receipt of the preliminary notice within 21 days. When doing so, consider: whether any clarification is needed (rare, as the letter need only give notice)? whether early admissions and/or assistance to the claimant on mitigation would be suitable to limit costs and/or narrow the claim?...

Contributory negligence When the defendant holds primary responsibility for the incident, they may assert that the other party contributed to it. The matters to assess are: which parties were to blame for the incident, and to what extent? in what proportion should damages be allocated, having regard to the comparative responsibilities of those at fault?...

DHV (a protected party through his litigation friend WTX) v Motor Insurer’s Bureau [2025] EWHC 2002 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? While the dispute largely turned on pre‑Brexit jurisdictional rules and the particular application of Spanish law, it still carries wider lessons for general practice in foreign accident claims. It acts as a timely reminder of how jurisdiction was established for overseas accidents before the expiry of the Brexit transitional period. It will not assist those dealing with newer accidents, where the position is now more complex. How the position will evolve remains uncertain; however, see FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Brownlie [2021] UKSC 45 for examples of when jurisdiction may still arise. Much of the judgment addressed contributory negligence and had relatively modest wider effect, yet the outcome depended on the calibre of expert accident reconstruction evidence—something worth noting in both international and domestic accident cases. As such, although its route to jurisdiction reflects the pre‑Brexit approach, its evidential emphasis provides takeaways beyond...

Ferguson v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2025] Lexis Citation 1619 What are the practical implications of this case? It should be noted that the rules and practice directions considered were those in force before the major changes commencing on 1 October 2023, not the later regime. The judgment clarifies CPR 45.24, which permits the court to confine costs to fixed ‘Portal costs’ (CPR 45.18 and 45.19) where a claimant unreasonably breaches the relevant Protocol; yet it was held inapplicable here. The court’s central rationale was that, even had the claimant initially followed the EL/PL Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Claims, the case would inevitably have exited the Portal because of the defendant’s conduct, namely: denial of liability; allegations of contributory negligence; and failure to make any offers to settle. Accordingly, practitioners should not presume that establishing a claimant’s non-compliance will of itself entitle a defendant to the lowest Portal costs if the defendant’s own approach would have stopped the...

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—11 January 2024 In this issue: Supreme Court decision in Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust Road traffic accidents Employers’ liability Occupiers’ liability Abuse and criminal injuries Fraud and fundamental dishonesty Regulation of healthcare professionals Brexit Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Supreme Court decision in Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust The Supreme Court has delivered its Judgment in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1, addressing whether a person may recover for psychiatric harm after observing the death or another shocking event involving a close relative resulting from earlier clinical negligence. By a six-to-one majority, the court determined that, whilst doctors owe a duty of care to protect their patients’ health, they do not owe a duty to close family members to guard them from illness arising from witnessing a relative’s death or medical crisis caused by a condition...

PI & Clinical negligence horizon scanner—July 2025 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. It summarises the principal legal developments relevant to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as at July 2025. For developments predating this horizon scanner, see PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning and key cases—overview. Key PI and clinical negligence developments The personal injury discount rate—a review In late 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, revealed the outcome of her five‑month review of the discount rate, initiated in July 2024. One month after the new +0.5% discount rate took effect, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) assesses its impact on cases, the responses from claimant and defendant representatives, and the consequences of the change for legal practitioners. See News Analysis: The personal injury discount rate—a review. MoJ announces reduction in CFO’s interest rates The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced lower interest rates for the Courts Funds Office’s (CFO) special and basic accounts...

This Practice Note addresses the defences that may arise in response to a claim for injuries caused by an animal. It considers accidents attributable to the claimant, voluntary acceptance of risk, trespass and contributory negligence. The Animals Act 1971 is referred to in this Practice Note as AA 1971. Accident caused by claimant A defendant may avoid liability for injury arising from an animal if they can demonstrate, under AA 1971, s 5(1), that the claimant’s injury was wholly their own fault. Examples might include the following: riding so close to another horse in a show ring that it kicks out (see Jones v Baldwin (2010) Cardiff County Court (not reported by LexisNexis®)) grabbing and restraining a dog so it feels threatened and bites (see Preskey v Sutcliffe (2013) Leeds County Court (not reported by LexisNexis®)) Voluntary acceptance of risk A defendant will also avoid liability under AA 1971, s 5(2), where the claimant has voluntarily accepted the risk of...

The nature of the duty owed by bus drivers A bus driver owes the same duty to fellow road users, including passengers, as any other driver: to drive with the reasonable care and skill of a competent motorist. That competence must be evaluated in context, particularly for those operating buses, by reference to: the Highway Code the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency's Official DVSA Guide to Driving Buses and Coaches Only with such a measured assessment of the duty of care can there be a meaningful decision on whether that duty has been breached. The County Court case of Kevin Graham v Go North East Limited (20 November 2017) (not reported by LexisNexis®) illustrates the delicate balance when applying this duty. A defendant bus driver collided with the claimant's vehicle at a crossroads controlled by traffic lights. He proceeded through a changing signal because he believed that not doing so, and braking, would endanger his passengers. The judge recognised the 'split...

[ In the High Court of Justice OR In the COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ] ] [ [ Specify division ] ] [ [ Specify Specialist court ] ] [ [ Insert location ] District Registry ] Claim No: Between [ A B ] Claimant and [ X Y ] Defendants ________________________________________________ Defence ________________________________________________ 1 Solely for the purposes of this claim, it is accepted that the Claimant’s fall whilst using a stile was due to the Defendant’s negligence and/or contravention of statutory duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957...

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ INSERT LOCATION ] CLAIM NO. [ INSERT NUMBER ] Between X Y Claimant - and - A B Defendant It is accepted that the Claimant commenced employment with the Defendant as a [ insert job title ] on [ insert date ]. On [ insert date ], the Defendant provided the Claimant with its Codes of Safe Working Practice, covering the operation of assorted machinery. The meaning and intent of those Codes were explained to [ him OR her ]. On [ insert date ], the Claimant received the Defendant’s Guide to Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome. It contained written guidance on the cause, identification, prevention, and treatment of HAVS. By the end of the 1970s, hand/arm vibration syndrome was widely recognised. From the time [ he OR she ] was given the above Guide, the Claimant understood the risks of hand/arm vibration syndrome arising from using any vibrating tools in [ his OR her ] work and what [...

[ IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT [ INSERT ] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ [ SPECIFY DIVISION ] ] [ [ SPECIFY SPECIALIST COURT ] ] [ [ INSERT LOCATION ] DISTRICT REGISTRY ] ] Claim No: [ Insert claim number ] Between [ Insert name and details of the Claimant ] Claimant and [ Insert name and details of the Defendant ] Defendant Defence It is accepted that the collision referred to in paragraph 1 occurred at the stated time and place. For the purposes of these proceedings, it is admitted that the Defendant was driving [ under the influence of alcohol OR under the influence of cannabis ] OR that the accident was caused by the Defendant’s negligence. The Defendant will say that, on the evening of the accident, both the Claimant and the Defendant had attended a party together. The Claimant knew that the Defendant had [ consumed alcohol OR smoked cannabis ] at that...