cases

Question 1

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Answer 1

• the type of injury is foreseeable even if it occurs in unexpected ways,

Question 2

Barnett v Chelsea

Answer 2

• causation in fact,
• claimant must have prove that he would not have suffered ‘but for’ the defendant’s act,

Question 3

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Answer 3

• breach of duty,
• d will be judged against the standard of care of a reasonable man carrying out the same activities,

Question 4

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 4

• judged against the standard of a competent driver,
• newly qualified will not be taken into consideration,

Question 5

Bolton v Stone

Answer 5

• size of risk considers how likely it is the harm will occur,
• more likely the harm, more care the court will expect the defendant to take,

Question 6

Latimer v AEC

Answer 6

• court will consider how easy it would have been in terms of cost and effort for the defendant to minimise or eliminate the risk,
• will be expected to take precautions that are proportionate,

Question 7

Morris v Murray

Answer 7

• volenti will not apply because claimant is aware of the risk,
• he must fully understand and accept it,
• claimant and d were drunk and decided to fly defendants aircraft,
• plane crashed, d was killed and claimant injured,
• claimants action failed as claimant was fully aware of risk on part of and got into plane anyways,

Question 8

Smith v Baker

Answer 8

• consent must be given freely,
• defence cannot succeed if claimant has no choice but to accept the risk,

Question 9

Brannon

Answer 9

• claimant was 50% responsible,
• damages were reduced by 50%,

Question 10

Froom

Answer 10

• court decided not wearing a seatbelt resulted in 15-25% reduction in damages,