Contributory negligence cases 
Contributory Negligence occurs where the defendant seeks to lay some of the blame on the claimant. There are two common examples of this in road traffic accident cases:
- where the claimant was not wearing a seat-belt (assuming that one was fitted) or crash helmet;
- where the driver was drunk and the claimant should not have agreed to travel with him.
It is frequently said that an allegation of Contributory Negligence would prevent the claimant from recovering an Interim Payment, but this is not the case. In some cases it has been argued that the claimant should recover up to 75% of damages by way of Interim Payment regardless. The reasoning is that, if the claimant is blamed eventually for failure to wear a seat-belt or crash helmet, his damages will generally be reduced by no more than 25% (if wearing a seatbelt would have avoided all injury the deduction is usually 25%: if some significant injury would have been sustained even if a seatbelt had been worn, the deduction is usually 15%).
The other 75% or 85% is secure, and the claimant is likely to recover that percentage in the end. On that basis, he can apply for the money at an early stage by way of Interim Payment.
The same principles should apply in non-road traffic accident claims. However, it is not quite so easy in factory accidents and leisure disasters to predict whether the claimant will be blamed and, if so, to what extent. Therefore, one cannot always say to the judge that the claimant will inevitably recover, say, 75% in the end, and so should obtain some of that money now. Nevertheless, the possibility is there, and should always be considered.
