ROAD TRAFFICAccident caused by defendant's negligence - injuries to child passenger carried on mother's lap without security of seat restraints - apportionment of liabilityJones (A Child) v Wilkins (Wynn and another Part 20 defendants): CA (Nourse, Mummery and Keene LJJ): 18 December 2000The claimant, aged two years and nine months, was travelling on her mother's lap in the front passenger seat of a car driven by the mother's sister.The mother's lap belt only was round the claimant's midriff.

The defendant, driving in the opposite direction, drove on to the offside of the road and there was a head-on collision.The claimant suffered severe injuries.

Determining the issue of the apportionment of responsibility for the injuries under section 2(1) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, the judge, having found substantial responsibility for the accident lay with the defendant, apportioned blame as to 75% to the defendant and 25% to the mother and her sister.

The defendant appealed.P R Main (instructed by Hill Dickinson, Chester) for the defendant.

Mark Grime QC (instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs, Manchester) for the mother and her sister.

The claimant, suing by her father and litigation friend, did not appear and was not represented.Held, dismissing the appeal, that consideration of the apportionment of liability began with the test of what was 'just and equitable' set out in section 2(1) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978; that Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286, a decision under section 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, continued to provide valuable guidance in similar cases requiring an apportionment under the 1978 Act; that the judge had not treated the 25% figure suggested in Froom v Butcher as an absolute ceiling but had exercised his discretion under section 2(1) of the 1978 Act; and that taking all facts into account the figures of 75% and 25% represented a justifiable distribution of liability.