Principles and Methods for Evidence-Based Quantification of the Effect of Seat Belt Non-Use in Crash-Related Litigation

Traffic crashes are a common cause of injury and death, and often result from the negligent actions of an inattentive, speeding, or impaired driver. In such cases, a civil legal action may be brought by an injured claimant for compensation for injuries resulting from a crash. Crash-related litigation is defended on various theories, one of which is to raise the issue of contributory negligence when the claimant was not using an available seat belt at the time of the crash, based on the assertion that the claimed injuries would have been avoided or minimized to some degree if the claimant had been restrained. At present, there are no published standards or systematic approach for assessing and quantifying the contribution of seat belt non-use to the cause of a claimant’s specific injury. A reliable medicolegal analysis that addresses whether contributory negligence can be proven in a specific case requires a multidisciplinary approach: First, the nature and severity of the crash must be reconstructed as it affected the vehicle kinetics (engineering) and in turn affected the kinematics of the occupant (biomechanics), next, the injuries must be described and scaled for severity (medicine/pathology), and finally, the risk of the known injuries given the actual circumstances of the crash and occupant (i.e., unbelted) are compared to the risk of the same injuries, and the same crash circumstances, but in the hypothetical scenario in which the claimant is belted. In the present discussion, methods for analyzing the presence and quantifying the degree of contributory negligence for seat belt non-use, suitable for presentation in a medicolegal setting, are described and illustrated with an example from the author’s personal case inventory. A detailed reconstruction of the crash is described, along with the associated occupant kinematics, and the resulting observed injuries. The injuries are then categorized by their anatomical location, type, and severity using Abbreviated Injury Scale designations. Quantification of the injury risk for the actual (unbelted) vs. hypothetical (belted) scenario is based on case-specific analysis of data accessed from a US national crash injury database The difference in risk for the two exposure scenarios can be quantified in terms of either relative risk (a risk ratio) or attributable risk (a risk proportion), with the goal to determine whether the analysis meets the threshold of a relative risk of >2.0, or an attributable risk of 50%, in order to meet the “more probable than not” standard typically required by courts. As a final step in a reliable analysis that exceeds the legal threshold for relevant evidence, the absolute increase in risk is used to quantify the degree to which the claimant’s seat belt non-use contributed to the likelihood of their injuries.

JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE MAXIM RES IPSA LOQUITUR TO A CASE OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE Lungile Ntsele v MEC for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government (unreported as yet, Case Number: 2009/52394 (GSJ) dated 24 October 2012)

It is trite law, in context of medical negligence, that the onus of establishing civil liability on the doctor’s part lies with the patient and liability must be established on a preponderance of probabilities. It is to be noted that, should the plaintiff be unable to prove his/her case on a preponderance of probabilities, judgment will be given in favour of the defendant; a court may, however, also order absolution fromthe instance. In delict, the plaintiff bears the onus to prove a wrongful act/omission on the part of the physician, as well as the element of fault (in the form of negligence) and that the act or omission caused him to suffer damages or personal injury. Where a defendant raises a special defence such as consent, contributory negligence or prescription, the onus of proof will be on the defendant. Generally, however, the application of the maxim of res ipsa loquitur is treated by the courts as a particular form of inferential reason, requiring careful scrutiny and giving rise to an inference of negligence rather than a presumption of negligence. The South African courts thus far have been reluctant to apply the maxim to cases of medical negligence, despite persuasive legal arguments that have been put forward that the maxim should be applied in specific circumstances with regard to the proof of medical negligence. In this respect general principles for the effective application of the maxim in cases of medical negligence, are, inter alia, that principles of procedural equality and constitutional considerations dictate that the maxim be applied in cases of medical negligence. It is for this reason that the present judgment under discussion (in tandem with s 27 of the Constitution) is instructive, despite the majority judgment of the Appellate Division (as it wasthen) in 1924, in Van Wyk v Lewis (supra), where it was held that the maxim does not find application in cases of medical negligence.

9. Defences to negligence

This chapter considers three defences. It begins with a discussion of the principle of contributory negligence. It presents cases showing that the rules for establishing contributory negligence on the part of the claimant are not the same as the rules for establishing liability for negligence on the part of the defendant. It then turns to voluntary assumption of the risk or consent (sometimes referred to as volenti non fit injuria) which provides a complete defence to an action. The defence is based on the view that a person cannot sue if he consents to the risk of damage. Finally, the chapter considers the defence of illegality, which arises when the tortious action is in the context of the claimant’s and/or defendant’s participation in an unlawful act.

7. Remedies for breach of contract

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on damages, the aim of which is generally to protect the claimant’s contractual expectation and put the claimant into the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed. The lost expectation may be measured in terms of the difference between what the claimant expected to get and what was actually received. There are limitations on the claimant’s ability to be fully compensated for losses as a result of breach, i.e. remoteness, mitigation, contributory negligence, and the ability to recover for non-pecuniary losses in contract. This chapter also examines agreed damages clauses and the operation of the penalty rule.

16. Defences and limitation

This chapter first discusses the defence of contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, and illegality. Contributory negligence occurs when the claimant has contributed to his own damage, and permits damages to be apportioned according to what is just and equitable. Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence, on the basis that the claimant freely agreed to run the risk of damage. Illegality is a complete defence, on the grounds that the law will not reward or appear to condone an illegal act. The chapter then turns to limitation periods, which restrict the amount of time within which legal actions must be commenced. The main statute is the Limitation Act 1980.

10. Defences to negligence

This chapter discusses three key defences in the tort of negligence: voluntary assumption of risk (consent or volenti non fit injuria), contributory negligence and illegality. The defence of voluntary assumption of risk is based on the common-sense notion that ‘one who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers it, complain of it as a wrong’. The defence of illegality denies recovery to certain claimants injured while committing unlawful activities. Contributory negligence is a defence that operates not to defeat the claimant’s claim entirely but rather to reduce the amount of damages the defendant must pay.

25. Interim Payments

This chapter discusses the rules on interim payments. An order for interim payment is an order for payment of a sum of money by a defendant on account of any damages, debt, or other sum which the court may hold the defendant liable to pay. Such orders are likely to be made in claims where it appears that the claimant will achieve at least some success, and where it would be unjust to delay, until after the trial, payment of the money to which the claimant appears to be entitled. The amount ordered must not exceed a reasonable proportion of the likely final award taking into account any counterclaim and contributory negligence.

9. Misrepresentation

Poole’s Casebook on Contract Law provides a comprehensive selection of case law that addresses all aspects of the subject encountered on undergraduate courses. A contract may include a statement that is a mere puff, a representation, or a contractual term. In the case of a representation, the maker asserts the truth of certain facts and thus induces the contract. In case of an actionable misrepresentation (an unambiguous false statement of fact which induces the other party to enter into the contract), the contract may be rendered voidable; that is, liable to be set aside or rescinded. In some instances, the injured party may claim for damages designed to restore him to his original position. This chapter examines the identification of actionable misrepresentation, duties of disclosure, types of misrepresentations, rescission as a remedy, damages for misrepresentation, including the damages available in s. 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, and the effect of contributory negligence in any damages award. Finally, the chapter examines exclusion of liability for non-fraudulent misrepresentation and the effect of ‘non-reliance’ clauses in contracts. In the consumer context, it also notes the criminal offences in certain instances of misrepresentation under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and the extension to include civil remedies for misleading actions.

14. Damages for breach of contract

Course-focused and comprehensive, Poole’s Textbook on Contract Law provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. Where there is breach of contract, the aggrieved party is entitled to the remedy of damages as of right. Contractual damages aim to compensate the claimant for losses suffered rather than punish the defendant. To achieve compensation the claimant is put in the position he would have been in if the contract had been properly performed and the breach had not occurred. In other words, the aim is to protect the expectation of performance (known as the ‘expectation interest’ or the ‘performance interest’). This may involve any difference in value between the promised and the actual performance, loss of profits, or reimbursing the claimant for any expenditure that had been wasted due to the breach. A claimant may not be fully compensated for his losses as a result of the remoteness rule, which limits recovery of losses and/or the duty to mitigate (minimize) loss. Damages may also be apportioned, in some circumstances, for the claimant’s own contributory negligence in contributing to his own loss. In general, non-pecuniary losses are not recoverable in a claim for breach of contract, but there are cases where a modest sum may be awarded for the disappointment resulting from not receiving the promised performance. The parties may include an agreed damages clause in their contract but in the event of breach only a liquidated damages clause will be enforceable; a penalty clause will not be enforceable beyond the claimant’s actual loss.

8. Defences to negligence

This chapter examines several defences in negligence cases, including contributory negligence (failing to take care of your own interests), voluntary assumption of risk, express exclusion or limitation of liability, and illegality (a plea by the defendant that the claimant should not be able to make a claim because the claim requires reference to the claimant’s own illegal acts). It explains that the plea of voluntary assumption of risk and the defences of express exclusion of liability and illegality can help the defendant reduce liability or avoid liability altogether. The chapter notes that contributory negligence is by far the most important of these defences in practical terms.