Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Compensation Bill [HL].


Compensation Bill [HL]

I will break briefly my vow of silence to say that I am afraid that 100 per cent contributory negligence is a logical impossibility. You may of course be entirely responsible for your own injury, as was the case with young Mr Tomlinson in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council because in that case the court found that the Congleton Borough Council had done everything that it should have done in the circumstances. The whole idea of contributory negligence is it is contributory because both parties have contributed to it. The suggestion that, for example, somebody who is thrown out of a car because he is not wearing a seatbelt could be held under any fair system to be held entirely responsible for his own injury when the crash was caused by another driver driving extremely carelessly really does not make sense. We are going back by this to the doctrine of, I think it is called, the last causative act, which was abolished in the 1930s.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c260-1GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Compensation Abuse Courts Damages Advertising Evidence Drugs Drunkenness NHS Personal injury Local government finance Public bodies Marketing Negligence Schools Regulation Voluntary work Risk assessment Claims management services
Legislation
Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk