2. Contributory Negligence

Question 1

This act is reduced so that the claimants own share of the damage is equated
In order for the defendant to be successful they must pass the test established in ~.

Answer 1

1. s1(1) the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
2. Jones v Livox 1945:

Question 2

1. Claimant failed to take reasonable steps for their own safety: Passenger is guilty of contributory negligence where they knew the driver had consumed excessive alcohol- being drunk yourself is not excuse to take
   reasonable steps

Answer 2

Owens v Brimmell

Question 3

Defendant was jumping out a cubicle she was stuck in -> stood on a toilet roll holder when escaping – damages reduced by 25% for not taking
reasonable steps

Answer 3

Sayers v Harlow

Question 4

Where the defendant was placed in emergency dilemmas contributory negligence may be inapplicable

Answer 4

Jones v Boyce

Question 5

Age taken into account reasonable steps required for a child differ to an adult. Child hit by lorry

Answer 5

Gough v Thorne

Question 6

Rescuers generally protected

Answer 6

Baker v Te Hopkins & sons

Question 7

Rescuers generally protected unless they contribute to emergency

Answer 7

Harrison v BRB

Question 8

2. Claimants fault must contribute to the damage/losses but not the event. No seat belt = injury worse even if it wasn’t involved in causation of accident.

Answer 8

Froom v Butcher

Question 9

Deduction calculations?
Case of multiple defendants?

Answer 9

Fitzgerald v Lane

Question 10

3. Illegality, Purpose of prohibition which has been transgressed, Public Policy - how will allowing the transgression effect public bodies, Proportionate response - punishment is a matter for criminal courts cannot punish individual

Answer 10

Patel v Mirza

Question 11

Patient killed someone -> convicted of manslaughter. Sued the health authority they released him despite mental health problems. Court ruled it would be disharmous to hand the claimant a criminal penalty with one hand and damages with the other.

Answer 11

Clunis v Camden

Question 12

Contractactual claim successfully defended as claimant did not have necessary license

Answer 12

Mahmoud v Ispahani

Question 13

Defendants negligent driving caused injury claimant was carrying weed - defence failed as illegality did not contribute to accident or injury

Answer 13

Delaney v Pickett

Question 14

Intoxication did contribute to accident as such defence did not fail/

both drunk on motorbike, passenger encouraging reckless driving = public policy = failed negligence claim = claimant’s injury was caused directly by the illegal act

Answer 14

Pitts v Hunt

Question 15

Illegal immigrant physically abused by employer. Defence failed due to lack of close connection between illegality and tort

Answer 15

Hounga v Allen

Question 16

crashed car + cannabis possession = defence failed = claimant injury was not caused by his illegal act.

Answer 16

Delaney v Pickett

Question 17

SC allowed to sue lawyers - professionals

Answer 17

Stoffel v Grondona

Question 18

Damages when the claimant dies

Answer 18

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Question 19

Allows for dependants (s1(3) close blood relations and those related by marriage or have cohabited for over two years) of the deceased to claim for any losses suffered as a result of death.

Answer 19

Fatal Accidents Act 1976