contributory negligence Flashcards
what is contributory negligence
they find the percentages of was their fault and takes the percentage off the awarded damages
what type of defence is CN
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
what climate must be when established CN
climate must have failed to take care of his own safety in a way that at least partially caused the damage suffered
what statue is CN under
Section 1 law reform act 1945
what is provided in Section 1 law reform act 1945
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
what will the courts look at with apportioning blame CN
at the contribution of both parties to the harm suffered by the claimant and apportion a percentage of responsibility to each party
after looking at the contribution, the claimant’s damages will what
then be reduced by that percentage
what the ratio of Froom v butcher: CA 21 jul 1975
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.
held for Froom v butcher: CA 21 jul 1975
held: the defendant’s appeal was allowed
what did lord denning MR say about the case Froom v butcher: CA 21 jul 1975
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..’
what is res ipsa loquitur mean
‘ the thing speaks for itself’ , is a long-standing rule of evidence
when will ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ and burden of proof
objects falling from buildings
malfunctioning machines
collapsing cranes
what is the first conditions was met in (Scott and Bennett v chemical construction (GB) ltd[1971]- strict controls
The event is one that would ordinarily not occur in the absence of negligence/ fault
what is the second conditions was met in (Scott and Bennett v chemical construction (GB) ltd[1971]- strict controls
the ting causing the damage must have been under the control of the defendant
what is the third conditions was met in (Scott and Bennett v chemical construction (GB) ltd[1971]- strict controls
there is no evidence as to why or how the accident occurred
facts of Scott v London & st.Katherine docks co(1865)
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
held for Scott v London & st.Katherine docks co(1865)
as the defiant could not give any explanation as to why he was not negligent, he was liable in negligence.
facts of Pearson v north west gas board (1968)
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.
what did the goas board owe on Pearson v north west gas board (1968)
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.
held for pearson v north west gas board 1968
res ipsa loquitur applied and the defendant could show that it has not been negligent
What does Volenti non fit injuria mean
no wrong is done to one who consents
Example of Volenti non fit injuria
Getting your ears priced
What is the defence for Volenti non fit injuria
that the claimant consented to the injury or (more usually) to the risk of being injured
What must be there in knowledge of the risk of injury
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)
What is the first point to prove violenti
Claimant must had knowledge of the precise risk
What is the second point to prove violenti
Claimant must have exercised A free choice
What is the third point to prove violenti
Risk must accepted voluntarily
What is subjective test for violenti
Claimant themselves must have appreciated the risk
