Contributory Negligence

Question 1

Froom v Butcher [1976]

Answer 1

DENNING:
Apportionment of CN - not about claimant’s responsibility in causing the tort - about claimant’s responsibility in contributing to the damage they caused.
No complex test required - just a simply apportionment underpinned by achieving what is just and equitable.

NOT WEARING SEATBELT (driving with care) - 20% CN.

Denning - seatbelt cases will vary - some cases- lack of seatbelt will make little difference to damage suffered, and in some, it will make ALL the difference.

Question 2

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

s.b. page 12

Answer 2

S.1. APPORTIONMENT

damages shall be reduced…as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility.

(a) (b)(c) - prevent/limit application of CN when a contract has explicitly limited liability.

Question 3

Pitts v Hunt [1991]

Answer 3

D encouraged driver who he knew was intoxicated, uninsured and unlicensed to drive.

NOT possible to reduce liability of D by 100% - 50/50 was just in the circumstances.

Question 4

Capps v Miller

Answer 4

Helmet on but not fastened properly - 10% CN

Question 5

Phethean-Hubble v Coles [2012]

Answer 5

16 year old - 50% CN - age 16 competent and experienced enough to cross road properly.

Question 6

Owens v Brimmell

Answer 6

Although could not be proven that C’s failure to wear seatbelt worsened injuries, mere act of getting in car with someone known to be drunk - 20% CN.

Question 8

Pritchard v Co-Operative Group (CWS) Ltd [2011]

Answer 8

Authority that defence of CN does NOT apply in torts of battery or assault.

Question 8

St George v Home Office

Answer 8

Prison case - fell of top bunk due to seizures.
Seizures - drug abuse when teen = but for cause.
Prison officers - breach.

On appeal, got rid of 15% CN - despite being ‘but for’ cause - too remote in time, place and circumstance.