contributory negligence

Question 1

what is contributory negligence

Answer 1

they find the percentages of was their fault and takes the percentage off the awarded damages

Question 2

what type of defence is CN

Answer 2

A partial defence that reduces the level of damages payable to the claimant
This includes damages for death and personal injury; damages to property and economic loss

Question 3

what climate must be when established CN

Answer 3

climate must have failed to take care of his own safety in a way that at least partially caused the damage suffered

Question 4

what statue is CN under

Answer 4

Section 1 law reform act 1945

Question 5

what is provided in Section 1 law reform act 1945

Answer 5

Where a person suffers damages as a result partly oh is own fault and party the fault of another
A claim shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering damages

Question 6

what will the courts look at with apportioning blame CN

Answer 6

at the contribution of both parties to the harm suffered by the claimant and apportion a percentage of responsibility to each party

Question 7

after looking at the contribution, the claimant’s damages will what

Answer 7

then be reduced by that percentage

Question 8

what the ratio of Froom v butcher: CA 21 jul 1975

Answer 8

the court asked what reduction if any should be made to a plaintiff’s damages where injuries were caused no only by the defendant’s negligent driving but also by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. It had been submitted that, since the defendant was not responsible for the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt, the question should be looked at purely as a matter of causation not as a matter of contributory negligence.

Question 9

held for Froom v butcher: CA 21 jul 1975

Answer 9

held: the defendant’s appeal was allowed

Question 10

what did lord denning MR say about the case Froom v butcher: CA 21 jul 1975

Answer 10

Lord denning MR said : ‘The question is not what was the cause of the accident, it is rather what was the cause of the damage..’

Question 11

what is res ipsa loquitur mean

Answer 11

‘ the thing speaks for itself’ , is a long-standing rule of evidence

Question 12

when will ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ and burden of proof

Answer 12

objects falling from buildings
malfunctioning machines
collapsing cranes

Question 13

what is the first conditions was met in (Scott and Bennett v chemical construction (GB) ltd[1971]- strict controls

Answer 13

The event is one that would ordinarily not occur in the absence of negligence/ fault

Question 14

what is the second conditions was met in (Scott and Bennett v chemical construction (GB) ltd[1971]- strict controls

Answer 14

the ting causing the damage must have been under the control of the defendant

Question 15

what is the third conditions was met in (Scott and Bennett v chemical construction (GB) ltd[1971]- strict controls

Answer 15

there is no evidence as to why or how the accident occurred

Question 16

facts of Scott v London & st.Katherine docks co(1865)

Answer 16

a customs officer was passing a warehouse and six sacks of sugar fell from a crane onto him. The crane and acts of sugar were under the sole control of the warehouse. It was agreed that sacks of sugar do not fall from crane unless someone has been negligent and there is no other obvious reason as to why such an incident should have occured

Question 17

held for Scott v London & st.Katherine docks co(1865)

Answer 17

as the defiant could not give any explanation as to why he was not negligent, he was liable in negligence.

Question 18

facts of Pearson v north west gas board (1968)

Answer 18

the gas main outside mr and mrs pearson’s house exploded, killing mr pearson and destroying the house. The gas board was able to show it has not been negligent, as it has taken all reasonable precautions to prevent gas leaks and , if they occured, to stop had been particularly cold weather and this caused the ground to freeze and then buckle during the thaw. This natural event caused the pipe to fracture.

Question 19

what did the goas board owe on Pearson v north west gas board (1968)

Answer 19

The gas board owed a duty of care to mr and Mrs Pearson but has not broken that duty as having regular inspections and 24-hour emergency call-out teams was a sufficient standard of care.

Question 20

held for pearson v north west gas board 1968

Answer 20

res ipsa loquitur applied and the defendant could show that it has not been negligent

Question 21

What does Volenti non fit injuria mean

Answer 21

no wrong is done to one who consents

Question 22

Example of Volenti non fit injuria

Answer 22

Getting your ears priced

Question 23

What is the defence for Volenti non fit injuria

Answer 23

that the claimant consented to the injury or (more usually) to the risk of being injured

Question 24

What must be there in knowledge of the risk of injury

Answer 24

risk of injury is not sufficient; there must also be(even if only by implication) full and free consent to bear the risk (simms v Leigh rugby football club tf (1969)

Question 25

What is the first point to prove violenti

Answer 25

Claimant must had knowledge of the precise risk

Question 26

What is the second point to prove violenti

Answer 26

Claimant must have exercised A free choice

Question 27

What is the third point to prove violenti

Answer 27

Risk must accepted voluntarily

Question 28

What is subjective test for violenti

Answer 28

Claimant themselves must have appreciated the risk

Question 29

facts of Smith v baker & sons 1891 AC 325

Answer 29

the claimant sued his employers for injuries sustained in the course of working in their employment. He was employed to hold a drill in position while two other workers took it in turns to hit the drill with a hammer. Next to where he was working, another set of workers were engaged in taking out stones and putting them in a steamed crane which swung over the building where the claimant was working. The claimant was injured when the stone fell out of the crane and struck him on the head.

Question 30

what did the claimant raised in Smith v baker & sons 1891 AC 325

Answer 30

The claimant raised defence of volenti non fit injuria in that the claimant knew it was dangerous practice and had complained that it was dangerous, but nevertheless continued. A trial the jury found for the claimant. The defendant appealed on the court of appeal allowed to appeal holding that the claimant was precluded for recovery as he was willing to accept the risk. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords.

Question 31

held for Smith v baker & sons 1891 AC 325

Answer 31

the appeal the appeal was allowed. The claimant may have been aware of the dangers of the job, but was not consenting to the lack of care. He was therefore entitled to recover damages. And may have been aware of the dangers of the job, but was not consenting to the lack of care. He was therefore entitled to recover damages.

Question 32

facts of Haynes v hardwood 1935

Answer 32

D left a horse-drawn unattended van in a crowded street. The horse bolted when a boy was throwing stones at stone. A police officer tried to stop the horses to save a woman and children who were in the path of the bolting horses. The police officer was injured.

Question 33

held for Haynes v hardwood 1935

Answer 33

the defendant owed a duty of care as he had created a source of danger by leaving his horse unattended in a busy street.

Question 34

what happen in nettleship v weston 1971

Answer 34

the defendant was a learner driver. She was taking lessons from a friend. The friend checked that the defendant’s insurance covered her for passengers before agreeing to go